I keep hearing rumours that these 2 were intimately connected if you get my drift.

Is there any evidence to support this?

Twouod be quite the scandal if proved.

Hey!  Just because they bought a house together, a couple of blocks from Russell Milhaus Nelson's house, proves nothing!


https://www.google.com/search?q=Wendy+%26+Sheri+%2B+Lesbians&rlz=1C1CHZN_enUS941US941&oq=Wendy+%26+Sheri+%2B+Lesbians&aqs=chrome..69i57.10783j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



click on this Google Search and take your pick of salacious rumors and innuendos...  including stuff from RfM, which pretty much is Scripture!

No evidence, just our general human inclination to be snarky. I imagine they are so sexually repressed that they would be the last to know, in any case.

Tiger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there any evidence to support this?

Would it matter?

Women don't make as good scandals as men in our world. There would probably more sympathy than scandal.

>
> Would it matter?
>



  I would think that if it were true, it would be food for thought with regard to the 'purity of purpose' of the people running the 23rd largest religion in Human History!  As in "OMG!" and other exclamations of horror!


  In a 2004 Meridian Magazine article, Sheri compared favoring gay marriage with favoring Adolf Hitler over all other political leaders. She got a lot of blowback for making that comparison and in her own defense, wrote:

  “I have friends living an openly gay lifestyle with kids. In every instance, they are caring parents who love their kids and their kids love them. They know I feel it's not my prerogative to judge them. It's their right to choose. . . . Those that deal with same-sex attraction have my respect.”

  I submit that it is rare that straight people have gay friends, with such closeness that they, the gays, know their (the straight people's) feeling on the subject and 'know' that the straight friend isn't judging them.

  So I ask myself the question, "Why does Sheri have multiple closer than normal friendships with gay couples?"  And the simplest answer ...  well, you know what the simplest answer is.

  I forget where this one, very often repeated allegation came from...  I know that it was as a response to an online discussion of this issue.  When it was made, people tried to engage the commenter but he/she never responded.  So while I would not bet the house on its being provable, I'm immature enough to accept it is as much gospel truth as the BofM.  High praise indeed!!


  There's an old quote that I'm sure many of us have seen...  I found the original post:

  Anonymous said...

As a well-educated person, you know about being wary of what you read.  I work at Deseret Book and have worked here for over 20 years.  I work in the corporate offices and have been in many meetings with Sheri Dew.

She is not a flawed woman as you describe, she is a very mean woman who is a lesbian and her partner is Wendy Watson.  Yes, Wendy is married to Elder Nelson.  (Even the most elect can be deceived--President Hinckley and Mark Hoffman.)  She is the opposite of what she preaches.

Why do I still work at Deseret Book?  Great retirement program--I'm stuck and so I survive like most of us here.

Sheri is bright, manipulative, self-centered, calculating, vengeful, self-absorbed, and cruel.

Be careful what you believe.  Ask people who have worked at Deseret Book what they know and think about Sheri Dew.  It will scare and surprise you.

December 16, 2008 at 7:09 AM

  http://ldswomenshistory.blogspot.com/2008/03/sheri-dew.html


Again, the citation is from the comments section by that most elect of commentators, Anonymous.

Who would have thought that "Do the DEW" is more than just an advertising slogan for Mountain Dew.

Apparently Wendy & Sheri have been "best friends" for quite a while. They may have been roommates at one time, have owned property together (jointly purchased a vacation home in Heber Valley), as the head of Deseret Books Sheri publishes books for Wendy, they still travel/vacation together (Rusty joins them to watch), and they are pretty much next-door-neighbors.

What's the saying about "Where there is smoke..."?? Not that there is anything wrong with that.

**Tried to provide a link but got shut down by the "Banned Word" message**

Sheri is completely full of CRAP in a MORmON way just like Gordon B.S. Hinckley, regardless of whatever else that is going on, or not.

Well, for Sheri to be able to act with impunity she needs a 2nd Anointing and therefore a legal husband.

There are a group of circumstances that allow the willing mind to wander toward salacious rumors. But there is no real evidence.

People can't resist spreading salacious rumors. Sometimes they even turn out to be true, at which time everyone can proudly proclaim how they "knew all along".

    Yes, but to be thoroughly enjoyed, no rumor has to be true.  This is the genius of rumormongering!

    Of course, once you become a ghawd, you'll always know what is true and what is false.  There will be no Victoria's Secrets in the CK.

And that's why the only fun there is in being a god is in making things and then breaking them again, like a seven year old in a sand box.

    Aha!  You've promulgated the possibility..., nay, the likelihood (but unprovable absent direct contact), that the ghawds are 100% predictable!

What were you expecting, a leaked sex tape?

A never-married woman, that has climbed higher up the mormon ladder than any other unmarried woman in the church (higher than it should even be possible to rise, given her refusal or inability to obey church doctrine and engage in mormon matrimony) —

who just happens to be a long-term co-owner of a home with the wife of the church president; who lived together before said presidential marriage; and who is allowed to travel with the first couple on their world jaunts (IIRC, none of the apostles' wives accompanied them for the Rome temple dedication, but Wendy and Sheri both went, Sheri for "documentary purposes" LOL) —

Just coincidence, you say?

There is nothing coincidental in the circumstances you describe above that comes close to necessitating lesbianism as an explanation.

In fact a more straightforward projection by far would be that they're close friends. Some people have those, I've heard. But it's certainly not the more entertaining explanation, is it?

I'll add further that assuming success for a woman in Mormonism comes through gay relationships with another woman who will at some unpredictable future point be married to the prophet makes absolutely no sense at all.

LMAO, if you say so. They are indeed close friends, very close in fact. Like joined at the hip close. Like borrow each other's garments close.

But you're awfully quick to hand-wave it all away and dismiss it as even a possibility.

Also, no, that last point makes it sound as though being part of the top troika was always going to happen. It wasn't, of course. But these pairings aren't always random, either. They're already together and, presto, the big man is suddenly available. Certainly knows Sheri from Des Books, and if they already live close by, even better. Then they become Friends With Even Better Benefits.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2226369

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1979525

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1642317

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1417538,1417950#msg-1417950

decultified Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LMAO, if you say so. They are indeed close
> friends, very close in fact. Like joined at the
> hip close. Like borrow each other's garments
> close.

There is absolutely zero evidence for your claims here. Only speculation based on circumstances.

>
> But you're awfully quick to hand-wave it all away
> and dismiss it as even a possibility.

I've dismissed no possibility, only commented on probability. If it tickles you to believe that two women adherents to a religion that abhors homosexuality have schemed their way into a threesome with the prophet, you go right ahead and add that to your daydreams.


>
> Also, no, that last point makes it sound as though
> being part of the top troika was always going to
> happen. It wasn't, of course. But these pairings
> aren't always random, either. They're already
> together and, presto, the big man is suddenly
> available. Certainly knows Sheri from Des Books,
> and if they already live close by, even better.
> Then they become Friends With Even Better
> Benefits.
>

Again, your speculations lack any credible supporting evidence.

LMAO right back at you.

My dearest Scarlett, how tightly you clutch your pearls! There's no cause to squeeze them so hard; you'll bruise your fingers.

If you're looking for incontrovertible proof like a video or sexting screenshots, the church would never let that get out. There will never be anything more than circumstantial evidence. But the circumstantial evidence exists whether you accept it or not.

I too am going with probabilities. I'm saying it's highly probable, say 90%. You haven't given any indication that your "probability" is other than zero. That is dismissing the possibility, unless you want to favor us with your own (non-zero) estimate.

Plus, I never said "schemed." That comes out of your own florid imagination. People constantly introduce friends and acquaintances to each other, and occasionally re-connect as circumstances and chance dictate. It could easily have been a fortuitously accidental by-product of one such casual meeting. I'm sure Russ and Wendy are madly deeply in love with each other and that no other factors were involved in their decision [/s].

And their church's position on homosexuality is irrelevant with respect to their own sexual orientation. There are plenty of lesbians within the church despite Bednar's opinion. (Sadly, many are stuck in straight marriages.) The higher up you are, and the better your connections, the more you can get away with. But if you want to believe otherwise, then you ought to tend to your own garden of daydreams.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1453704

Wow, that's a lot of words to defend your fantasies of Wendy and Sheri swapping garments.

You don't need to justify it to me. I mean, it's not my thing but like I said, if it's yours, have at it.

That's your takeaway, Scarlett? That's what you focus on? A throwaway adlibbed one-liner, a sarcastic mormonized riff on teenage girls or college roommates borrowing each other's clothes? And you think you can spin that into some kind of fantasy of mine? JFC.

The obvious reason I used "a lot of words" was to address the substance of your posts. But you decided to dismiss all that, instead twisting a single offhand comment and presenting it as something it's not and was never intended to be. It's not my thing but if it's yours, have at it.

Yeah, that's what I got out of it.

Your "substance" included name calling, but worse, a claim of quantified probability where quantification isn't even possible. You've offered nothing but common unsubstantiated speculation, and the energy required to respond to your "substance" far outstrips my remaining interest in the topic.

The public expression of your inner imaginations, however...Now that's entertainment!

You're pretty amusing yourself. You fired the first shots with "no sense" and "daydream" before I answered back.

----

"but worse, a claim of quantified probability where quantification isn't even possible"

It's *worse*? Making a subjective estimate, what a terrible thing to do! /s

You've got an odd hierarchy of offenses. Get a grip. It's done all the time. You claim to deal in probabilities but hide behind the "unquantifiable" dodge the way a mormon uses "too sacred to share."

And just to clarify, the "substance" that you were quoting from me referred to the content of your posts, not mine.

I hope I didn't use too many words this time. Tell you what, I'm getting tired of this as well. You can get in the last word if you want. Peace out.

    One of the best sentences ever!!:

    "Mormonism has never had a hard-on for Lesbians."

    See https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2226369,2226383#msg-2226383

    The Primary President had her husband marry first one, and then another plural wife, so that she, the Primary President, could have her way with them.

    You'll note that the Primary Association magazine was quite proud of Louie...

    It was man-on-man love that riled up the Saints!


    My Apocryphal story: There's a photo I've put up on Reddit that shows me and six other elders in Hawaiian garb in Guadalajara.  There are two LMs present as well.

    One of those two LMs came out of the closet in the early 70s.  In a conversation in a lesbian bar in Beverly Hills in about 1977 with this charming young lady, she and her wife told me that the lesbian scene in SLC was, deep, long and wide, that I would be stunned if I knew how extensive it was, and that it included a lot of mormon married women.

    I could find no fault in their stories, and I was a professional cynic and 'puncher of holes in stories' guy.

    I don't care either way what the truth is, but my expectation is that there are flames beneath the smoke.  If I'm wrong, how big a deal is it, really?  They obviously are not concerned.  And likewise, if I'm right, no big deal, in the vast scheme of things. (Other than the hypocrisy, but hey, that's not new either...)

didn't hit it off, so he dated Wendy. Sounds extremely fishy to me. In the end, it doesn't really matter. It is their business, but it is interesting.

Since you posted this, they two women seem to look a little alike - facial features, that is. No proof of anything, just a little odd.

IDK what difference to us ex-Mos if their sexual preferences, habits, or actions are unconventional....

Certainly they have enough sense to keep anything unconventional between themselves; would it 'shake faith' of some TBMs & pretend TBMs? sure it would, but what about the $ 100 + Billion ?

I can hear the rationalizations now from TBMs!

Aren't we the 'Live & Let Live' crowd?