But in the original context of the quote, Dew does no such thing. Ordain Women conveniently omits all the context showing that Dew is not stating her own perspective, but paraphrasing someone else's. This is the more complete quote:
"[T]here are those who feel that the participation and visibility of women need to increase. Others have had unfortunate experiences with priesthood leaders or priesthood bearers. Still others are troubled because within the Church's hierarchical structure, men ultimately control everything. 'Men make the rules and they enforce the rules,' is how some express it."
Dew goes on to state her own perspective, refuting the notion that men control the church: "When all is said and done, it is the Lordnot manwho ultimately controls everything." What a contrast to the quote Ordain Women provided!
My point is not that Dew is right, but that it is unfair to edit her words and take them out of context to make a point very different than the one she intended.
Another example of omitting crucial information is the Ordain Women founder's appeal of her excommunication, which argues that her local church leaders violated scripture:
"[A]ccording to Doctrine & Covenants 121: 37 when any priesthood holder attempts to 'exercise control or … or [sic] compulsion' we are instructed that, 'the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.'"
This severely edited version of the scripture omits the critical phrase "in any degree of unrighteousness." This edit tries to make the scripture say what the author wants it to say that her leaders' actions had no possible justification instead of what it actually says.
In addition to omissions like these, Ordain Women distorts reality to suit their purposes. For example, Ordain Women's website claims that "the challenge to advocate for women's ordination was articulated by former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley," citing an interview in which Hinckley was asked whether the Church could ordain women someday. His response was, "Yes, but there's no agitation for that."
That is a statement of fact, not a "challenge." He did not say agitation was desirable, necessary, or sufficient for women's ordination. Calling his statement a "challenge" is stretching it to the point of absurdity. It is dishonest to lead others to believe that Hinckley encouraged agitation for women's ordination when he did not.
As methods of addressing important issues and convincing others, misinformation and distortion like this should be unacceptable to people on all sides. They cast doubt on everything Ordain Women says and does, and I hope no one falls for this kind of manipulation.
Ashley Isaacson Woolley has a master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She is a scholar, editor, wife, mother and Mormon. She lives in Switzerland.