So I've decided to stop blogging for good. It's too much work, especially right now, when I am studying all the time for my accounting classes. But even more so, I have been met with too much criticism to continue on. It's too much of a strain on some of the relationships in my life. This is a place that I wanted to be able to blog about the things I was concerned about, the things that many people don't know I think. I thought that the people in my life who I love and cherish would want to understand why I left the church. But I guess not. 

I started writing this blog for a plethora of reasons, and some of my motives occasionally took a turn, and sometimes even got lost. Many people have told me to stop writing, others have encouraged me, and most have clicked the links on facebook anonymously leaving no trace that they ever read it. The fact is that what I've written in this blog - for better or for worse - is part of me. The value in it is not whether I was right or wrong in whatever I talked about; the value is in the way the blog represents me. 

In my opinion, silence is the same as acceptance. But let me make myself clear. I do not accept mormonism. I do not accept its hurtful and detrimental doctrines. Although I am not going to write anymore, I await an invitation to talk. If any of you want to discuss about anything at all, I will be happy to do so. I will not try to lead you down any sort of path, but I will tell you about my experiences, and what I think. 

As a "warning" to all of you mormons out there: The internet exists, holding all sorts of information that calls into question the truthfulness of the church and the veracity of the Book of Mormon. People (especially youth) are going to find these things eventually. These are issues you need to confront if you want to keep those who discover it in the church. I left (in small part) because I knew nobody I knew could give me solid answers to my questions. So know your religion. Know the bad stuff and the good. Because telling kids not to go to unsanctioned church websites won't stop them.

For my very last words I wrote a poem. I hope you enjoy. 

I stopped believing in God

And people said I was wrong

People wondered why

People begged me not to go

But I stopped believing in god

For his own benefit.

I stopped believing in God

When I realized that he helps

People find their car keys

And recover from a cold

But he would not help people

Being compressed cattle cars,

Nor the terrified little girls sold

Into prostitution and slavery

I stopped believing in god

Because “teaching someone a lesson”

Is used as an excuse to commit

Crimes and atrocities in the name of

Love. I stopped believing in God

Because he’s an abusive father.

I stopped believing in God

When I found out that he

Said men should treat women

Like cattle. Like objects to be

Counted, and had for their own glorification

I stopped believing in God

Because he’s a misogynist.

I stopped believing in God

When I learned that people

are responsible.

That the devil doesn’t whisper

“She’s asking for it”. When I

Learned that he blames Satan

For rapists and murders

Rather than admit fault for

Allowing them to hurt others

I stopped believing in God

Because he is not just or merciful.

I stopped believing in God

When I decided that he kept taking

The glory for himself; when I decided

That he is not responsible for

Prosthetics, Vaccines, Chemotherapy,

Transplants, Germ Theory, or Antibiotics.

Scientists and doctors are.

I stopped believing in God

When he continued to take

Credit for the extraordinary sacrifices

Of Men and Women.

I stopped believing in god,

Because he plagiarizes.

I stopped believing in god

When he said that he had a

Chosen people. That he favored

Some above the rest. Even

Though I was a part of the

Chosen generation, I never

Stopped to think of the kids

Who got picked last.

I stopped believing in god

Because he discriminates.

I stopped believing in God

When I learned that gay girls

And transgender boys feel that

The only handle on the door of

Closet, is the trigger of a gun. When I

Learned that people string themselves

Up and kick out the chair because

Their family and their God do not love them,

Or support them in their happiness

I stopped believing in God

Because he really does hate the gays.

I stopped believing in god

When he never answered

Me. When I cried, and begged him

Make me straight. When he ignored

Me. When he knew I was suffering

And did nothing to help. I stopped

Believing in god when I realized that

he’s given up caring.

I stopped believing in god,

Because he stopped believing in me.

I stopped believing in god

For his own benefit.

But even more so,

I stopped believing in god

because if he exists, then he isn’t

a god I want to know.

I stopped believing in god

When I discovered that I am

Self-reliant; When I discovered

That I can make my own

Choices about my mind and body. That I

Don't need his advice or comfort

Because I have myself. Because

This imperfect humankind

Is more useful and more beautiful

Than him.

I stopped believing in god,

Because I believe in Humanity.

*Adapted from words said by John Larsen of White Fields Education

So a while ago, I joked about the plan of salvation, and I feel like need to discuss it from a fairer point of view (although I will have somewhat to say about its inconsistencies).

The preexistence:

To start, let me take you back to the premortal existence. I guess regular Christians don't believe in a life before this one, but I always assumed they did. I don't really know. Anyways, we started out as spirit children of our heavenly father and mother. We lived happily, but without bodies. Then god said one day that he has a plan. This plan involves us going to earth to receive a body, so that we can be tried, and prove our worthiness to god. He said that we would succumb to sin, but would be redeemed by someone who would come and take our sins upon himself. This person would be Jesus, god's first born child.

Then Lucifer said that he had a better plan. He would be the redeemer and make all the people who go to earth obey god, essentially taking away our free agency. Mormon tradition says that it's because he wanted all the glory, but it sounds like a good plan to me. Anyways, then god says no, and Lucifer starts a big war or something. He led away "a third of the host of heaven" (some people speculate this means something other than an actual third. I don't know why. In any case, it's not important). God then casts Lucifer down to earth where he is to be the tempter and devil or whatever.

The story of the pre existence raises a few questions, some of which I had long before I left the church. If anybody has a responses to these questions let me know, because I really don't know how Mormon apologists address these issues.

1. Did we have agency in the premortal life? If so, why did we get sent to earth to be tested. If the angels could choose who to follow, what is the point of being here? We've already chosen to follow god! Some might say that this is where faith comes in. They would say that now we are not in the presence of god and have to prove our loyalty even when we don't know for sure that he exists. To that I ask, "What kind of system is this? Why do we have to prove our faith that he's there at all?" Imagine that god appeared before us all and said, "I giveth you a commandment, one of the highest commandments: Don't masturabte." We would have seen god telling us not to do it, but it would still be difficult (if not impossible) to avoid masturbating! I don't understand faith. Why does god have to be all secretive, playing peekaboo with humanity?

2. Did god plan for Satan to fall? If so, he's kind of being unfair. If there had to be an adversary, then god knew that at least one of his children would have to be eternally sacrificed for this plan to work. According to Mormons this plan will cyclically continue on (that is, we'll have spirit children of our own that have to be tested), and if that is the case then it is a system that necessarily continues to make devils out of our spirit children.

Earth life:

Okay, so we make it to earth and we are living our lives. We go through all sorts of trials, and are expected to go to church and live by god's commandments. We are apparently born as the natural man, that is our default is to sin. If we didn't have god's commandments we would all be stealing and murdering and whatnot. (Y'all think this is a joke, but I've heard people get up in testimony meeting and swear that if they weren't a member of the the church they'd be a drunken homeless person or something). A lot happens on the earth, but in essence we all inevitably sin, and can only have salvation through Jesus. So we have to repent for our sins and that will save us in the end. Not only this, but we have to engage in sacred ordinances that allow us to get into heaven.

Some questions I have about this are as follows:

1. Apparently, man is naturally tempted to sin. But for some reason we need an adversary (a devil) to tempt us. Why is that? Some might say that we are naturally tempted, satan just tries to tempt us more. But according to lehi, men are not enticed one way or the other (2 Nephi, chapter 2), basically saying there is no such thing as the natural man, and we need a devil to tempt us. Which is it? Are we born destined to sin, or are we just pulled one way or the other?

2. I don't understand why we need to be tried at all. If god is all powerful, can't he just say we all get a free pass? If not then he is clearly limited by something bigger than him. The laws of the universe, I assume. I don't know, it all seems a little fishy to me. Apparently there are the laws of justice and mercy, which must be met, but who designed these laws, and why can't god override them? Also, why does god have to be merciful? Justice I can understand, but why merciful? I just don't get it.

3. We have the holy ghost to guide us, but why do we need him? Isn't god omnipresent? Can't he communicate to us directly? Some Mormons say that this is because he has a body, and so he can't do all the things that a sport can, but then he's not omnipresent and all powerful and the holy ghost basically gets a cooler job. The reason the holy ghost is so important to Mormons, is because it affirms their beliefs. Since you don't get the holy ghost until you convert (or turn 8), Mormons have a special knowledge that their church is true, because they alone have the spirit with them. Honestly, its not that affirming to me. On top of all this, the spirit apparently leaves you when you sin, but isn’t that when you need the spirit the most? Isn’t that when you need the most guidance and more promptings?

4. I'm not gonna touch on the sacred ordinances, there is just too much there to talk about.

The afterlife:

The afterlife looks very different from the view regular Christians hold. After we die, we go to either spirit prison or spirit paradise. Mormons go to paradise, and non mormons go to prison. I don't remember where the bad Mormons go. Someone help me out. Anyways, the spirits in paradise can go over and teach the ones in prison, and the ones in prison can be converted (and presumably cross over to paradise).

Then, at the last day we are all tried. God, Jesus, and the holy ghost are all there (I've heard that Joseph Smith will be too, but I don't think that's founded in any doctrine). Anyways, we are then placed into separate kingdoms according to how good we were, and whatnot. Outer darkness (or hell) is saved for only a small number of people. I guess it's pretty hard to get into that exclusive club. Families are forever, and people who go to the celestial kingdom become gods and get their own planet and whatnot. I'm not going to even talk about the temple and the endowment, because I never went in, so I'm not supposed to know about any of that. After all it's not secret, just sacred enough that nobody is willing to talk to me about it. Kinda like a secret.

Questions and complaints:

1. If we can just choose in spirit prison to be be converted, why don't we do that? Why are there missionaries at all? Let the ignorant people have their fun here on earth, and then convert them in the afterlife! I guess some would say the gospel brings people joy, but it brought me a lot of heartache, and I would rather be one of the ones who never knew about the church.

2. If we die before we turn 8 (and are baptized), we apparently go to the celestial kingdom. So these people get a free pass? What about me? My parents should have pumped carbon monoxide into my crib, if it meant that I didn’t have to “struggle with same-sex attraction”.

3. Do we need multiple wives to get into heaven or not? Please, someone clarify this for me. I really want to know. I've heard that there are degrees within the highest degree, and that to get into the tippity top degree you need multiple wives. Is that true? In the doctrine and covenants it says you do need multiple wives, as it's commanded by the lord, but that doctrine has never been retracted. I honestly don't understand this, someone please explain in the comments.

4. I guess there is a kingdom of glory for people that never got to hear the gospel? But isn't that the point of spirit prison/paradise? So that people have a chance to hear the gospel? Do people that convert in the afterlife not have any chance of getting into the celestial kingdom? Cuz that's a lot of people.

5. Why is three kingdoms better than 1? Can the entire human population, with all its complexity's and individualisms really be fit into three categories? And how is this much better than just one heaven and a hell?

6. How does the “Families are Forever” thing work? Like, it’s a really nice sentiment, but aren’t we all technically family? Do gods go visit their brothers on the weekend or something? When we have FHE does the entire human race gather in the living room? I don’t get how that works. Someone please explain.

7. This isn’t so much of a question as it is a rant. The role of our Mother in heaven is non-existent. She has no role in our lives. We are not supposed to pray to her or really talk about her much. Mormons say that this is because she is too special, and god didn’t want people taking her name in vain or defaming her. This position doesn’t hold up for me, because women are supposed to be the ones staying at home taking care of the kids. She’s the one changing dirty diapers. She’s the one who delegates chores, and deals with the complaining. According to the mormon faith, women’s primary responsibility is raising children, which isn’t pleasant much of the time. To suggest that our mother in heaven couldn’t handle her children on earth is just preposterous.

Unfortunately, this is the attitude many mormons hold towards women. They are too sacred, special, and delicate to be involved in more rigorous things. This view - that women are more righteous than men - is held by many people in the church. One frequent reason provided for the question of polygamy is that women are more righteous than men. People often say that men are the ones who get the priesthood, because they are the ones who need it. I guess they figure men need extra guidance because they are more likely to sin. I don’t get it. Many people would say that because of this view, Mormons are more feminist than anyone else. Alas, feminism is not about women being superior to men, but about women being equal to men. Both men and women suffer from the socially constructed gender binary, but that’s a discussion for another day.

I have a question for all you mormon women out there. If this system is perpetuated into the future, then this means you will have no interaction with your children while they are on earth. You will sit silently in a corner while your husband does all the work. How does that make you feel? I for one would want to be involved with my children, especially at such a rough time in their spiritual life. I had a great idea, that mormons should take and run with. The holy ghost could be our heavenly mother. She could be the comforter and the guider and what-not. Take it, or leave it.

Another question: Do we have multiple heavenly mothers? Is god a polygamist? It says in Doctrine and Covenants that you must have multiple wives to be exalted, so does god engage in polygamy?

There is of course, even more to talk about than this, but this is all I could think of at the moment. If you’d like to answer any of my questions, correct me on some doctrine, or anything else, please comment below. Sorry about any spelling or grammar errors, I don't have a lot of time to write and proofread. I also am not a writing mechanics expert. Thanks for reading, guys. It really means a lot to me.  

My Dilemma

Hello readers. I’ve had a lot of things on my mind recently, and felt an urge to blog, so I guess I’m going to. Today I’m writing about a dilemma I’ve faced for the entirety of my post-mormon life (which is only about a year and half or so). Let me begin by saying that when I initially left the church, I had nothing against it. I left because I personally disagreed with some of its basic teachings, but knew that it brings a lot of people joy, so I didn’t have much of a problem with people still believing in it.

The problem came when I began to see that there is a lot of evidence mounted against the mormon church’s beliefs and practices. I had seen some inconsistencies before, but as I learned more about the church, I found that there were many I hadn’t discovered. Something in me changed then. Suddenly, I felt compelled to warn people. To tell them that they were being misled. I was filled with missionary zeal. I wanted people to know about these issues for a couple reasons.

1. I wanted validation. This does not mean that what I believe is wrong and I wanted other people to side with me so that I could convince myself that what I believe is right. It means that I wanted my opinion to be worth something. I wanted people to listen to me, with open ears rather than closed minds. It’s hard to feel happy when everyone is against you, even when you know you are right.
2. I wanted to warn people. Mormons, most of all, should be able to understand this. I found out about some things that told me that the church was - without a doubt (look at me using mormon lingo) - untrue. I wanted people to know that they were putting their time, faith, and money into a church that was (in my opinion) fundamentally flawed.
3. I was fascinated. I learned more about the Mormon religion outside of the church than I did in all my years of sunday school and seminary. Suddenly, things made sense. The Book of Mormon suddenly became not quite as boring, because I could see how history had a hand in shaping it. Looking at the church as a product of history (real history, not what they teach in primary) is truly amazing. Discovering the extent of the church’s power is awe inspiring.

But you don’t really need to know my reasoning for wanting to spread my devilish lies to the four corners of the Earth. What I want to talk about today is that I have come to wonder if causing people to doubt their faith is really a good idea. For one thing, ignorance is more than bliss - it’s heaven. Before I left the church, I imagine that there was some kind of bubble surrounding my family. In this bubble, we were happy. We envisioned ourselves in heaven all together. When I left, this image was shattered. I recognize that this was (and still is) painful for my family. For mormons, the family is central to happiness, so I essentially took it away their happily ever after.

Another problem that I’ve thought about is that people’s lives are entrenched in the church. For many people, especially older people, the church is their entire identity. Their community, support system, and devotion is all found in the church. For most people who leave the church, we have an identity crisis, because we lose many of our friends, and the ideals we built ourselves around come crumbling down. This was difficult for me, but it would be heartbreaking for people who have dedicated their entire lives to the church. I had excellent friends who kept me from getting depressed. These friends were there for me when others weren't. Shout out to them. You know who you are. Anyways, some people don’t have these support systems outside of the church, especially women, who don’t usually work and, as a result, often have limited social interaction that is not dictated by the church. For these people leaving could be extremely depressing.

My biggest fear is that I might actually help someone out of the church, or that I might be instrumental in their decision to leave. Although this might seem strange for someone who thinks everyone should walk away, I know that leaving is incredibly painful. It is a hard journey, and people do not make it unscathed. Life outside the church is scary and confusing. For this reason, I am sometimes hesitant to talk to people about my beliefs. In addition to these things, marriages in which only one partner find the truth usually end in divorce. I know that some of what I say reaches people who are married. I would hate to be the person that planted the seed of doubt in that spouses mind.  

What do I do? Do I keep blogging? Do I continue to write about what I believe? Should I shut up for the sake of other’s happiness?

I don’t think so. My intention (which is not always reflected in my actions) is to make myself understood and be a support to those who are struggling, and on these fronts I will not be silent.

This is one reason I don’t go shouting my beliefs around the city. I want them to be here for people to read about, but I don’t want to unintentionally put someone through unwanted misery.

I want everyone to understand that this is a real struggle for me. I want people to be happy, but I’ve decided to take care of myself. I’ve decided that I deserve to be happy, and I will do my best to make it so.

Hello lovely followers,

I have to make an apology. The last post I wrote was written while I was feeling stressed and angry. As such, it came off - I now realize - as incredibly vicious and attacking. This was never my goal in writing this blog, and although I started trying to bridge the gap between believers and nonbelievers I strayed from that intent. That does not negate everything I said in my last post, but I would like to apologize for one thing. The Family: A Proclamation to the World does not contribute to rape culture. It does (in my opinion) still create some unhealthy power dynamics, but it does not only value women for their bodies, as it also values them for their child rearing abilities, which is, perhaps, one one of the most important jobs in society.

I was also feeling inflamed about the excommunication of Kate Kelly, and so it focused a lot on that instead of my own experience, which I had hoped to do when starting this blog.

Although some of the things I said in my last post are inaccurate, I am going to leave it up, because it shows how I actually was thinking at the time, and illustrates some of the frustration that ex-mormons feel after leaving. This blog is meant to be an insight into what I am thinking and feeling - the passive, and the more aggressive.

I would just like to stress one thing: All people are not the same and should not be treated as such. People cannot, and should not be coerced or even encouraged to fit into predestined jobs and roles, and The Family make it seem as if these natural boxes are just the way of things.

Again, I am sorry for the tone and feeling of my last post. Currently I'm particularly angry about some things, and it came out I'm my post. I realize that at this time I am not prepared to address different issues with a clear mind. As a result, I'm going to be taking a break for a little while so that I can calm down and focus on writing my memoir.

If any of you have questions, arguments, or just words of encouragement you can always message me at jread138@gmail.com. I always welcome discussion, especially in person.

Thanks for reading,

Josh

Today I'm going to talk about women. Mormon women in particular, but also women in general. I'll begin by saying that most Mormons don't really think sexism is a problem. This is not unique to them. There are a great deal of men and women in the United States who think that equality has more or less been achieved, and there isn't a reason to disrupt the system. I used to be one of these people. I didn’t understand how people think Mormons are sexist. Men and women are equal but serve different roles, I was told. It took me a long time, even after leaving the church to become a feminist. As I've learned more about feminism, I've learned that it's a lot more simple but also a lot more complicated than people think.

Google defines feminism as "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." It is as simple as that. Feminists want women to have the same respect as men. Most of you probably think that women and men should have the same rights, liberties, and opportunity as men. If you don't, you should stop reading this post and go live in Afghanistan where you can beat your wife without batting an eyelash.

Feminists pose a threat to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, because the practices and teachings of the church are inherently sexist. Elder Packer has even said that the feminist movement is destructive. The two most prominent forms of sexism are found in the priesthood and The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

The Family contributes to rape culture. For many of you Mormons this statement is offensive, and many of you probably don’t know what that is, or don’t believe it is an actual problem. Rape culture is a very complex thing, and is very hard to define, but I’m going to pull one idea from it. The concept of rape culture says that we objectify women. This is not a novel idea to most of you. Most of you know that as a culture we objectify women on a daily basis. You see it in advertising all the time. The objectification of women subtly promotes the idea that women are objects to be used at a man’s discretion. It’s dehumanizing, and wrong.

Now many of you are probably wondering how this ties into The Family. Mormons don’t usually think of women as objects of sexual gratification. However, it objectifies women in a different sort of way. Instead of being objectified sexually, they are objectified procreative-ly.    The Family says:

“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”

This sort of thinking - that men are to preside, and women are to have babies - feeds into the idea that women are only good for their bodily capabilities. Granted, there are mormon women who work and put their child in daycare or whatever, but these people are not technically following “god’s commandments” because The Family explicitly states that women should be taking care of kids. In mormon culture and doctrine, being a mother is seen as the best a woman can be. Women are continually denied the priesthood on the grounds that they have a different sort of calling and power: motherhood. Women who choose to have successful careers instead of children are pitied; members say in their minds “How sad that she will never know the joys of being a mother.”

When women are assigned a value based on their body we have rape culture. I can give a few examples of this. Someone once said to me that if my friend didn’t get skinny she would have a hard time finding a husband at a church school. This person was probably not wrong. It is probably more difficult for larger women to get married at a BYU school (and outside of mormonism as well). But this issue illustrates that men are looking for appearances, not actual merit. The fact that this isn't turned around into “fat men will have a hard time getting married at BYU” suggests that men are valued for other attributes as well: likely their ability to be bread-winners.

This can also be seen in the fact that many women go (or are even sent) to BYU just to get married. There is literally a major that teaches you how to be a good home-maker. There is a joke amongst mormons that some people go to get their M.R.S degree.

Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with wanting to raise children, and it is an admirable feat to accomplish. My dream is to one day be a house-husband (I just made up that term). I really want to adopt some kids, and cook and clean all day. But when women are taught and told that this is their only option, it becomes a problem.

Many mormons say, “Men and women are different. They compliment each other. That’s why one gets motherhood and one gets the priesthood.” Men and women are indeed different. But not so different as you might imagine. (If you want to read more about this, I wrote a post about it a while back and you can read it.) More importantly though, people are different. People compliment all sorts of people, and often times women compliment other women and men compliment other men. Furthermore, this doctrine sounds an awful lot like “Separate, but equal” which as we all know is bull shit. If women are equal to men, they should be able to serve in the same capacities as men, and men should be able to serve in the same capacities as women.

This is a nice segway into the priesthood, so I’m going to talk about that now. As all Mormons know, women cannot hold the priesthood, and so cannot hold offices in the church other than as a relief society member (which, coincidentally,  is also under the direction of men). Most of the world sees this as inherently sexist, but people in the church don’t. As I said above, separate but equal is discriminatory, and can in no way be construed as a good thing.

According to Mormons, the priesthood is the power and authority to act for god here on earth. Why can women not have this power? Why can’t a woman pass the sacrament? If we are all created in God’s image, if we are all equal, if we all are fully capable of believing and testifying of christ, why can women not do so?

What I really want to talk about today is the excommunication of Kate Kelly, and will primarily take material from a radio interview with Ally Isom, the public representative for the church. She discussed Kate Kelly’s excommunication and excommunication in general.

First I will discuss what Kate Kelly and the movement Ordain Women wanted. They did not “demand” that the church ordain women. She believed, through scripture study and revelation (which the church says individual members can get) that women should be able to be ordained to the priesthood. She merely asked the first presidency to ask god if women could be ordained, which they refused to do. I want to emphasize this: The first presidency, whose job it is to receive revelation and ask god questions refused to ask god questions and receive revelation.

I secondly want to point out that nowhere, in church cannon, does it say that women can’t have the priesthood. It is merely a common practice of the church.  In other words, Kate Kelly was not challenging doctrine or God’s word. When I was in Sunday school we were taught that one thing that made the church so special was that there was nobody between god and the individual. The church existed, but the church itself was not responsible for determining what revelation someone did or didn’t receive. If the church believes it is the only one that can be right on this issue then it pretty much means we can’t receive personal revelation. It’s like saying, “You can believe and say what you want, as long as it’s approved by us.”

Ally Isom brings up some semi-good points in her interview in which she says two things I’ll address. One is that excommunication is not exclusion. This is wrong simply because excommunication literally means to be cut off from some entity. When you’re excommunicated, you can’t pray publicly. You can’t take the sacrament. You can’t do most of the things regular members do. This is humiliating for many people. Most people don’t return from excommunication which says a lot about what it actually does to people. If it is so helpful, why do most people stay gone? It is punishment. It is not loving. This sort of public humiliation is reminiscent of The Scarlet Letter and has no place in modern society. Mormons call church courts “courts of love”, which is exactly what they are not.

Secondly, Ally Isom says that excommunication is a choice. Members are warned that that they will be punished and can “correct their course”. To me this sounds like an abusive relationship. If a man told a woman to be quiet or he would hit her, is he justified when he hits her for continuing to speak? It is a choice to continue talking, but that doesn’t mean that the punishment is warranted. Also, if members are making a “choice” to do so, then there is absolutely no need for a “church court” because the decision has already been made. The ecclesiastical leaders have said (In the case of Kate Kelly who could not appear in her Court), “I speak for god. I speak for you, and I know both of your hearts”. As a side note, the court was made up entirely of men, which can hardly be expected to fully represent a woman.

A number of years ago President Hinckley said the presidency didn’t ask god about ordaining women because there was no “agitation”, that the women "are happy". But now there is a clear agitation, so why can the church no consider her plea? Some say she is “asking in the wrong way” but how then are we supposed to ask? Her movement wasn’t terribly disruptive or driven by anger. She wanted to be heard, and did what  she believed to be right. Indeed, Kate Kelly is showing her faith by appealing to church leaders whose purpose is to speak for God. She believes that their responsibility is to get revelation, and is supporting them in that role.

All of this doesn’t mean that the church shouldn’t have excommunicates her. They have the right to do so; they don’t want her proclaiming to be mormon while advocating for non-mormon beliefs. However, I think it is wrong for them to pretend it is some kind of loving gesture. They knew that this would be devastating for Kate Kelly. Excommunication leads to all sorts of problems, a great deal of stress, and humiliation. It is no more than a bullying tool and a means of enforcing uniformity.  

I think the saddest thing is that so many women in the church are okay with the current power structure. It's disheartening to see how they are disillusioned and misled into believing that they don't need to be equal with men. I really hope that ordain women will be successful, and bring people to understand their oppression.

Obviously, I don’t think there is any point in trying to fix the broken church at this point. I left because I didn't want to stay in such a corrupt church. In my opinion, everyone should just jump ship and swim to shore. But I admire Kate Kelly for standing up for her beliefs, speaking out, and being persistent. If there were more people like her within the church it might be worth keeping around.