Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MorningStar

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

Recommended Posts

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

 

She's talking about Marchant

Share this post


Link to post

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

Huh?

 

She's talking about Marchant.

 

Or did I not get your joke?

Share this post


Link to post

She's talking about Marchant

 

Thanks. I missed that. I've never heard of Marchant before.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if there's some way we can exchange Kate Kelly and John Dehlin for Lavina Fielding Anderson and Michael Quinn.

Share this post


Link to post

Story here

 

I'm not surprised by the church's actions.

I'm not surprised neither. Good for the Church.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

From her Bishop's letter:

 

I understand that you are now living in Utah and I am willing to work with you to make a reasonable adjustment in the scheduled date and time of the council. If you are unable to attend in person, you are invited to provide a written statement and any other materials you desire to be considered by the council....Please let me know whether you will be attending in person.

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post

From her Bishop's letter:

Doesn't sound like an in abstentia trial as I understand the term.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

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

For suggesting an academic publication isn't the place to call out a popular critical voice who was still on the membership rolls?

Edited by David T

Share this post


Link to post

For suggesting an academic publication isn't the place to call out a popular critical voice who was still on the membership rolls?

So "popular critical voices" are somehow exempt from academic analysis?

Share this post


Link to post

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.

We must ALL align ourselves with Palerider (not Clint Eastwood). Palerider is the one true historian and theologian!!!! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

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

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Not sure where to begin ... perhaps, at the beginning ...

 

BY becomes the territorial governor of Utah in 1851 and the next year, the legislature makes Utah a slaveholding territory.  So less than a decade before the Civil War, we came down on the side of slavery.  Wrong side of history.

 

Civil rights movement -- we sat that one out but decided not to extend the benefits of equality in the priesthood for another 15 YEARS after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.  Wrong side of history.

 

We've taken a definite stand against SSM by getting heavily involved in Prop 8.  In the six years since, more than a dozen states have legalized SSM and EVERY court that has ruled on the issue has found the ban on SSM to be unconstitutional.  Wrong side of history.

 

At present, women in our Church do not have the authority granted to 12-year-old BOYS.  In two years, this country will very likely elect a woman to be the "leader of the free world," yet this same woman would not be "qualified" to hand out bread in our Church.  Wrong side of history.

 

I love the saints but that love does not allow me to ignore the reality that we tend to be a little slow on the change front.

Share this post


Link to post

For suggesting an academic publication isn't the place to call out a popular critical voice who was still on the membership rolls?

 

I didn't mean to derail the thread with a snarky aside, but I would just say that you and I obviously define the word "suggesting" very differently...

Share this post


Link to post

......

 

 

 

Nevermind.

Edited by sethpayne

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, I want my rep point back now.

 

 

:)  Sorry SeekingUnderstanding.  I just don't have the energy for a long protracted argument these days ...  But I'll tell you what I will do is give you a rep point!

 

I'll hit the highlights.

 

1.  Why should the Bretheren be exempt from considering the validity of their own beliefs etc... If regular members like you and me should do it -- and by the way I think this is excellent advice from smac -- then why should the Brethren, who are FALLIBLE human beings not be asked to do the same thing?

 

2.  It is dishonest and disgraceful to misrepresent the statements and views of your ideological opponent.  Let's aim for logic and reason rather than build up "strawwomen" (in this case) to easily knock down.

 

This is an issue that deserves serious consideration by all involved.  We do ourselves no favors by simply saying "Well, the Lord has revealed such and such ... so there isn't much we can do."  We've seen several times where our leaders have reversed themselves after preaching the immutability of the divine command.  To be honest, I've heard some solid arguments -- especially from Valerie Hudson -- as to why Priesthood is restricted to men.  However, I find absolutely no scriptural directive against it and, in fact, I see several very prominent examples of women holding high office in both the OT and NT.  

 

For heaven's sake, Mary & Mary were apostles if we follow the definition given in Acts 1.  1) They were with Christ during his mortal ministry and were the FIRST to witness his resurrection.  In fact, in Mark they had to convince the MEN.

 

*sigh*

 

ETA:  Let's add some interesting data points.

 

Kelly is going to be disciplined because she expressed a view that the Brethren disagree with.  She openly advocated for change based on her opinion and the views of others involved.  Perhaps I've missed it but I have not seen Kelly call the Brethren names (as Sonia Johnson did), not has she made any unreasonable or offensive requests.  

Edited by sethpayne

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Not sure where to begin ... perhaps, at the beginning ...

 

BY becomes the territorial governor of Utah in 1851 and the next year, the legislature makes Utah a slaveholding territory.  So less than a decade before the Civil War, we came down on the side of slavery.  Wrong side of history.

 

Civil rights movement -- we sat that one out but decided not to extend the benefits of equality in the priesthood for another 15 YEARS after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.  Wrong side of history.

 

We've taken a definite stand against SSM by getting heavily involved in Prop 8.  In the six years since, more than a dozen states have legalized SSM and EVERY court that has ruled on the issue has found the ban on SSM to be unconstitutional.  Wrong side of history.

 

At present, women in our Church do not have the authority granted to 12-year-old BOYS.  In two years, this country will very likely elect a woman to be the "leader of the free world," yet this same woman would not be "qualified" to hand out bread in our Church.  Wrong side of history.

 

I love the saints but that love does not allow me to ignore the reality that we tend to be a little slow on the change front.

 

 

The Saints were kicked out of Missouri on the fear that Missouri would become a free state.

 

Maryland and California both allowed slavery. Deseret sided with the Union in the Civil War, for them the issue was not slavery but of the ability to leave the Union.

 

Civil Rights has nothing to do with Priesthood authority. God at any time if he wanted to could make it that only flying purple people eaters can have to Priesthood authority. Do I see that as happening? No. But nothing in our Scriptures precludes it either.

 

Believe me women in the Church has just as much authority as any man. The roles may be different but the authority is just the same.

 

Patience my grasshopper. You will learn in time that change comes to the Church pretty quickly when it is needed.

Share this post


Link to post

This is just sad. The church is true. Follow the prophet with fierce loyalty and endure to the end.

kicking against the pricks will never lead anybody to happiness. Smh...

Share this post


Link to post

 

Believe me women in the Church has just as much authority as any man. The roles may be different but the authority is just the same.

 

 

 

Can a woman initiate an excommunication?

 

Interestingly Kelly is going to be excommunicated by her former Bishop. But to excommunicate a man you need a higher authority. 

Share this post


Link to post

This is just sad. The church is true. Follow the prophet with fierce loyalty and endure to the end.

kicking against the pricks will never lead anybody to happiness. Smh...

Not sure that sad is the right word. Sad was the right word a few months ago. BUt not now.

Share this post


Link to post

Can a woman initiate an excommunication?

 

Interestingly Kelly is going to be excommunicated by her former Bishop. But to excommunicate a man you need a higher authority. 

I am not sure this is totally true. But it is a non starter either way.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not sure this is totally true. But it is a non starter either way.

 

It's true. You need a Stake President and high council to excommunicate a priesthood holder. Women can be excommunicated by bishops. 

 

I don't think you can honestly say women have equal authority in the church as men. You can argue that it's God's will, if you like. 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post

Does the LDS Church really believe these people are a threat? Why not just ignore them?

Share this post


Link to post

Can a woman initiate an excommunication?

 

Interestingly Kelly is going to be excommunicated by her former Bishop. But to excommunicate a man you need a higher authority. 

 

Yes they can. All they have to do is renounce the Church and tell the Church what it has to believe. That is how the process starts.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes they can. All they have to do is renounce the Church and tell the Church what it has to believe. That is how the process starts.

 

I assume you understood my question and chose to misread it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Does the LDS Church really believe these people are a threat? Why not just ignore them?

 

Out here in Sodom and Gomorrah they are no real threat. But I don't know many organizations that take kindly to people who actively work against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...