Ny Times Article: Kate Kelly And John Dehlin Threatened With Excommunication

[jkwilliams]

Me too. Dehlin seems to me to have done much more in affecting people's actual faith, presenting the Church in negative ways but his audience was limited to those who sought him out it would seem.

I've never been able to wrap my head around what John has intended to accomplish. I will say, however, that John is a good man who always encouraged me to resolve my issues with the church and remain an active member.

However, Kelly's organization is presenting itself as actively proselyting LDS members and not just waiting for them to become aware and join on their own. And that first discussion is a doozy, I can't see anyone not already deeply committed to their faith in the Church as God's authorised organization seeing the benefit of being a member outweighing the costs (if they accept the costs as presented by OW which are not accurate imo). I can see a leader wanting to convey a message quickly that such things are not permissible in order to prevent a spread of copycat proselyting organisations, each with their own agenda to change the Church in the future. Shutting the proselyting down before it is even fully presented sends a clearer message that such are not permissible.

I haven't said much of anything about the OW movement, probably because as an inactive member I don't feel like I have a legitimate voice in those issues. Generally speaking, I support people who try to effect positive change within their faith community, and I take Ms. Kelly and her colleagues at their word that they have been trying to do just that. That said, I understand very clearly that in the LDS church, as President Packer has said, the channels of authority run downward, not from the bottom up. Ms. Kelly was, to borrow again from President Packer, facing the wrong way and trying to push change from below, and I don't think the church works that way.

[smac97]

I used to listen to Dehlin back when I was first questioning the church's validity and wondered how he could know so much about the true history of the church and not come to the same conclusion I had.

 

I guess time solved that issue.

 

The church is doing itself no favors here. This will only re-enforce the idea that they don't have the intestinal fortitude to face the truth.

"The truth" being the personal opinions of John Dehlin and Kate Kelly?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

If nothing else, this sort of shows where the church draws the line between constructive criticism from the membership and apostasy.

Constructive criticism doesn't IMO require an individual or organisation to act counter to its very nature (in essence force a revelation by making such a revelation an ultimatum or require it to redefine its own moral standards). Constructive criticism works with the nature of the individual or organisation, not against it.

[Calm]

I am not familiar with many cases of trial for apostasy. Has anyone ever been able to convince such a court that their views were not apostate or is pretty much the only recourse for those being tried to recant their views?

Since the proceedings are not publicised by the Church, I don't think this can be researched with any accuracy.

[smac97]

From Kate Kelly's website:

I was informed on June 8 that there will be a disciplinary council held in absentia by my former bishopric on June 22 to try me for “apostasy.” I have moved away from the Washington, DC area, and after I left my former Stake President sent me a letter outlining what he called “informal probation” after meeting with me one time, while I was packing to move. The trial will be held in my former ward and I am not able to return.

This seems a bit odd. If she has moved, wouldn't jurisdiction over her be vested in her current bishop and stake president?

I am skeptical of the "I am not able to return" thing. Are the roads between her current home and Washington DC washed out? Did an EMP take out all airline travel to and from DC?

Denver Snuffer pulled a similar stunt during his disciplinary council when he insisted that his children attend the council, and he then refused to attend the council when the stake president did not capitulate.

Is a disciplinary measure meted out "in absentia" deemed less legitimate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

From Kate Kelly's website:

Knowing how the Church works, it would be a simple matter for her to call her new stake president and indicate that her old stake president lacks jurisdiction over her, and ask her new stake president to handle it.  It is likely the old stake president has no clue that she has left.   

 

If it is true things are being directed by the General Authorities, there is almost no chance the Church woudn't agree to send the matter to the new stake president.

 

But, it certainly would look better for her story to complain about being disciplined in abstentia.

[jkwilliams]

Constructive criticism doesn't IMO require an individual or organisation to act counter to its very nature (in essence force a revelation by making such a revelation an ultimatum or require it to redefine its own moral standards). Constructive criticism works with the nature of the individual or organisation, not against it.

As I said, the channels of authority and revelation run from the top down in the LDS church. The OW movement essentially tried to push change from the bottom up, and so they were, as President Packer put it, facing the wrong way.

I'm not passing judgment about the righteousness of the OW cause or of Kate Kelly, but I'm simply acknowledging that what they were trying to do doesn't quite work in the church, which is what I think you're also saying.

[Duncan]

Come on David, that'll never stick unless you use a cute alliteration.

 

the gruesome twosome?

[williamsmith]

I used to listen to Dehlin back when I was first questioning the church's validity and wondered how he could know so much about the true history of the church and not come to the same conclusion I had.

 

I guess time solved that issue.

 

The church is doing itself no favors here. This will only re-enforce the idea that they don't have the intestinal fortitude to face the truth.

 

Your "truth" is not the "truth"....  It's a perversion of the truth, the devils counterfeit.  Having been anti-mormon, I actually know this for a fact.

[Scott Lloyd]

The other way to look at it, is the NYT picked it up because it 'IS' significant.   These are hot button issues for many faiths at the moment, not just Mormonism.

New York Times didn't just "pick it up."  OW is on a PR campaign to exploit this for all it's worth. I've just seen an email -- probably a form letter -- from someone identifying herself as their "PR director."

 

I'm confident the Times was one of their first contacts.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

Perhaps Kate Kelly is hoping that her efforts will precede a change in doctrine/procedure like Byron Marchant's opposition did in 1977 & 1978. Marchant opposed the denial of priesthood to those of African descent and cast an opposing vote against Spencer W. Kimball at the October 1977 general conference. He was excommunicated shortly after that. In the April 1978 conference he organized a protest on Temple Square, was arrested, but promised to organize another one at the October 1978 conference. The revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males was received on June 8, 1978.

[thesometimesaint]

I used to listen to Dehlin back when I was first questioning the church's validity and wondered how he could know so much about the true history of the church and not come to the same conclusion I had.

 

I guess time solved that issue.

 

The church is doing itself no favors here. This will only re-enforce the idea that they don't have the intestinal fortitude to face the truth.

 

UH. NO! The Church has a long established method for change, and public activism isn't it. 

[Brian 2.0]

They don't call many church courts for simple "apostasy" do they? The article only mentions a part in the letter about John's online statement of not believing in the "truth claims" of the church.

There is more to it than that I assume.

[Calm]

Didn't Kelly state she was moving to Zimbabwe? Maybe she is not in an area with an organised stake or maybe her work has her moving around a lot.

[Buzzard]

I'm saying that by excommunicating those who study the true history of the church (not the whitewashed version) and come to the conclusion that it is full of holes, they don't do themselves any favors. Much better to just cut them off and go stick their collective heads in the ground and pretend that nothing is wrong.

 

There IS something wrong. There is a rotten spot in the organization and it needs to be rooted out.

Mr. Rider, even if the church acceded OW's demands, put Ms. Kelly in the Quorum of the 12, placed all the Mormonstories podcasts on LDS.org, and thanked both of them for enlightening the brethren, I suspect you would still tell us we were messed up. Of course, then I and other active members would be scratching OUR heads. Bottom line is that both these folks have IMHO, crossed the line between asking questions (allowed), and telling the brethren they are full of it. (not allowed).

[mormonnewb]

UH. NO! The Church has a long established method for change, and public activism isn't it. 

 

Given our shoddy record of being on the wrong end of history as often as not, perhaps we should consider a establishing a new method for change.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps Kate Kelly is hoping that her efforts will precede a change in doctrine/procedure like Byron Marchant's opposition did in 1977 & 1978. Marchant opposed the denial of priesthood to those of African descent and cast an opposing vote against Spencer W. Kimball at the October 1977 general conference. He was excommunicated shortly after that. In the April 1978 conference he organized a protest on Temple Square, was arrested, but promised to organize another one at the October 1978 conference. The revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males was received on June 8, 1978.

Post hoc fallacy.

[Calm]

Perhaps Kate Kelly is hoping that her efforts will precede a change in doctrine/procedure like Byron Marchant's opposition did in 1977 & 1978. Marchant opposed the denial of priesthood to those of African descent and cast an opposing vote against Spencer W. Kimball at the October 1977 general conference. He was excommunicated shortly after that. In the April 1978 conference he organized a protest on Temple Square, was arrested, but promised to organize another one at the October 1978 conference. The revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males was received on June 8, 1978.

Given what later happened with Marchant, I hope for her sake she is not taking him as a role model.

[thesometimesaint]

Given our shoddy record of being on the wrong end of history as often as not, perhaps we should consider a establishing a new method for change.

 

Actually the Church is quite good, perfect no, but quite good.

[cdowis]

Given our shoddy record of being on the wrong end of history as often as not, perhaps we should consider a establishing a new method for change.

 

I don't even know where to begin ==>>

 

"Wrong side of history"

 

"New method for change"

 

These are code words for "the church needs to read the newspapers and become informed on what they should be doing and teaching.  Other religions are doing that."

 

Religion by editorial opinion.

[Duncan]

Given what later happened with Marchant, I hope for her sake she is not taking him as a role model.

 

 

what happened to Marchant?

[Calm]

He appears to be a rather bitter antimormon. Holds the position that Joseph Smith deserved to die, should have been hung even. That current church leaders are criminals, etc.

[smac97]

Given our shoddy record of being on the wrong end of history as often as not, perhaps we should consider a establishing a new method for change.

What's this "our shoddy record," kemosabe?

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

Kinda makes me think that Gerald Bradford got played for a fool.

[jkwilliams]

He appears to be a rather bitter antimormon. Holds the position that Joseph Smith deserved to die, should have been hung even. That current church leaders are criminals, etc.

 

Are you talking about John Dehlin? That doesn't sound like him to me.