Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

 

The Church could ignore their Six Discussions ..

Before every disciplinary council that I have been involved in the stake president has explained that the council has three purposes. They are:

1) To save the soul of the sinner.

2) To protect the innocent.

3) To preserve the good name of the church.

In both Dehlin's and Kelly's case I see all three as applying, but number two stands out as very important to me. The course that Dehlin and Kelly have chosen will influence not only their lives, their families lives, and other church members now, but also for generations to come. Browsing the profile picture on the Ordain Women site I'm saddened by the number of small children in family photos that have been posted. At some point the church has to step in and say that this has gone to far.

Link to comment

Only to those who actually accept that the Church teaches true doctrine.

 

No, false doctrine is false doctrine whether one believes it or not.  It is not up to the individual to define what is or is not Church doctrine.

Link to comment

Has someone quoted the exact grounds for excommunication for apostasy yet? I remember it being more than just teaching false doctrine.

 

This is what i could find on lds.org.  It's written by M. Russell Ballard-

 

"Members sometimes ask why Church disciplinary councils are held. The purpose is threefold: to save the soul of the transgressor, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard the Church’s purity, integrity, and good name.

 

The First Presidency has instructed that disciplinary councils must be held in cases of murder, incest, or apostasy. A disciplinary council must also be held when a prominent Church leader commits a serious transgression, when the transgressor is a predator who may be a threat to other persons, when the person shows a pattern of repeated serious transgressions, when a serious transgression is widely known, and when the transgressor is guilty of serious deceptive practices and false representations or other terms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions."

 

I'm not sure how helpful that is.

 

The Guide to the Scriptures also says this-

 

"Church authorities excommunicate a person from the Church only when he has chosen to live in opposition to the Lord’s commandments and thus has disqualified himself for further membership in the Church."

Link to comment

Interesting article and interesting thread.

 

It may be wrong to speculate about whether the disciplinary actions are correct, or will happen.  But at the same time, considering the very public actions of these two are we really surprised.  The word inevitable seems appropriate.  It was never going to end any other way.

Oh, I wouldn't be as fatalistic as all that. Thomas Murphy is still nominally a member of the Church, but his departure seemed "inevitable" too. (I note, BTW, that he made a splash for a brief while, but he otherwise did affect the Church.)

Also, I think Kate Kelly has raised a fair point about the propriety of her bishop scheduling a disciplinary council after she had moved out of the ward (although, in what appears to be her predeliction, she raised the point in an abrasive and inappropriate way by publicly accusing her bishop of being "cowardly and unchristlike"). Frankly, I would not be surprised if her disciplinary council is postponed or cancelled altogether. In fact, I am expecting cancellation. The Church's membership records can be instantly transferred, and if her membership records are no longer in the DC ward, then I do not see how the processes for reporting a disciplinary council can proceed. The bishop in the DC ward may not be able to generate the necessary reports or properly follow the CHI's guidelines on discipline.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Is she teaching that women must be ordained, or advocating that women be ordained-is that what you are asking? I'm not sure i understand what you are saying, because it seems like she has done both.

She is advocating for the ordination of women, and also teaching others that the ordination of women is the only acceptable decision for the church to make.

I haven't really followed her that closely but I don't recall her teaching that women must be ordained... Only advocating that the Brethren pray about it.

But I just opened my copy of Handbook 1 and "teaching false doctrine" is not listed as a reason to excommunicate someone.

After reading the list of excommunicable offenses in the Handbook I'm not aware of these three having done anything to deserve excommunication.

Link to comment

No, false doctrine is false doctrine whether one believes it or not.  It is not up to the individual to define what is or is not Church doctrine.

 

My point was that we should not be surprised when those who think the Church is in error sympathise with those who preach false doctrine.

Link to comment

Before every disciplinary council that I have been involved in the stake president has explained that the council has three purposes. They are:

1) To save the soul of the sinner.

2) To protect the innocent.

3) To preserve the good name of the church.

In both Dehlin's and Kelly's case I see all three as applying, but number two stands out as very important to me. The course that Dehlin and Kelly have chosen will influence not only their lives, their families lives, and other church members now, but also for generations to come. Browsing the profile picture on the Ordain Women site I'm saddened by the number of small children in family photos that have been posted. At some point the church has to step in and say that this has gone to far.

Dehlin and Waterman both helped me stay in the church after experiencing a faith crisis.

Link to comment

Is Kelly advocating for that or teaching it as truth? I think there's a significant difference.

I'm a long time reader/listener of Waterman/Dehlin and I don't see anything they've done that would warrant excommunication.

 

You should have been his stake president and he wouldn't be facing a disciplinary council.

Edited by ERayR
Link to comment

My point was that we should not be surprised when those who think the Church is in error sympathise with those who preach false doctrine.

 

It's no surprise to me.  We should not be surprised when those who think the Church is in error carry it too far and then face disciplinary action.

Link to comment

I haven't really followed her that closely but I don't recall her teaching that women must be ordained... Only advocating that the Brethren pray about it.

But I just opened my copy of Handbook 1 and "teaching false doctrine" is not listed as a reason to excommunicate someone.

After reading the list of excommunicable offenses in the Handbook I'm not aware of these three having done anything to deserve excommunication.

 

She began the whole OW campaign by proclaiming that the ordination of women was the only acceptable outcome.  This was during OW's first attempt at getting into the Priesthood session of conference.

Link to comment

I haven't really followed her that closely but I don't recall her teaching that women must be ordained... Only advocating that the Brethren pray about it.

But I just opened my copy of Handbook 1 and "teaching false doctrine" is not listed as a reason to excommunicate someone.

After reading the list of excommunicable offenses in the Handbook I'm not aware of these three having done anything to deserve excommunication.

Here is what Ordain Women has publically declared:
 
"it is clear that Mormon women must be ordained in order to be full and equal participants in their Church."
"We call for the ordination of women and their full integration into the governance of the Church"
"As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood."
"Ordain Women will make a public statement continuing our unequivocal call for complete equality and the ordination of Mormon women."
"I truly believe that God wants us all to equally share the burdens and blessings of the priesthood. The ordination of women would put us all on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice.” 
 
The first two deffinitions of apostasy listed in the church handbook are the following:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority
 
Both of these define Ordain Women's actions. Kelly has been asked to take down the Ordain Women website as part of the "correction" and she has refused to do so. Therefore she is subject to church discipline for apostasy.
Link to comment

Dehlin and Waterman both helped me stay in the church after experiencing a faith crisis.

 

I am glad they helped you stay in the church.  However, that does not excuse stepping over the line and it seems his stake president feels he has stepped over the line. 

Link to comment

 

 

But is excommunicating them going to "protect" anyone?  In the days before the Internet, it might have been possible to insulate the saints by just removing the apostate from physical proximity with ward members.  But not now.  Dehlin and Kelly can communicate just as clearly with their flocks by e-mail, podcast, etc.

 

 

It will remove the facade of authority by reason of Church membership.

Link to comment

 

 

But is excommunicating them going to "protect" anyone?  In the days before the Internet, it might have been possible to insulate the saints by just removing the apostate from physical proximity with ward members.  But not now.  Dehlin and Kelly can communicate just as clearly with their flocks by e-mail, podcast, etc.

 

Now, perhaps the leaders think that the label of being "excommunicated" will cause the saints to ignore them.  And that will certainly be the case for the TBMs.  But TBMs are not Dehlin and Kelly's "target" audiences.  Their target audiences are members who are questioning some part of the Church's doctrine or practices.  Dehlin and Kelly will now have the "apostasy" cred of being excommunicated.  For someone who agrees with OW, the opinion of someone who was excommunicated "for the cause of equality" will carry significant weight.  She will be the modern-day equivalent of a "martyr" or "freedom fighter."

 

I see this in the memes that are coming across my FB feed to "Support John & Kate."  I also see it in the memes depicting the Church (they are not "faith-promoting").

 

 

 

"their target audiences"? does that sound like a member with an agenda or what! Just because you are a member doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and believe whatever you want and operate as if you are a totally normal non wolf in sheep's clothing member

Link to comment

But is excommunicating them going to "protect" anyone?  In the days before the Internet, it might have been possible to insulate the saints by just removing the apostate from physical proximity with ward members.  But not now.  Dehlin and Kelly can communicate just as clearly with their flocks by e-mail, podcast, etc.

 

Now, perhaps the leaders think that the label of being "excommunicated" will cause the saints to ignore them.  And that will certainly be the case for the TBMs.  But TBMs are not Dehlin and Kelly's "target" audiences.  Their target audiences are members who are questioning some part of the Church's doctrine or practices.  Dehlin and Kelly will now have the "apostasy" cred of being excommunicated.  For someone who agrees with OW, the opinion of someone who was excommunicated "for the cause of equality" will carry significant weight.  She will be the modern-day equivalent of a "martyr" or "freedom fighter."

 

I see this in the memes that are coming across my FB feed to "Support John & Kate."  I also see it in the memes depicting the Church (they are not "faith-promoting").

I don't think that the idea is to insulate anyone. But, by taking this action, the church is making it clear that the path that Dehlin and Kelly have been encouraging people to follow is not the correct path. People will still have to choose, but the choice will be clearer.

Link to comment

The six discussions (albeit only two being released) is likely the catalyst.   She is encouraging women to have discussion groups, about the issues using a format that at least spoofs a church missionary format.   If she did all this after the SP had asked her to quit, I get how she ends up where she is.   But I don't know how she can attend a church disciplinary council if she is enroute to Kenya and no longer in any ward officially, having moved from elsewhere to stay temporarily with family (which I think is her story).

 

I was intrigued by the ldsnewsroom discussion of disciplinary councils.   It says that only men can be assigned to stake disciplinary counsels.   Now if this had been a news organization, I would have assumed a slip, since I'm pretty sure that the cut off  isn't priesthood v. women, but temple vs. not temple.   But the article seems to state that women aren't even equal in disciplinary proceedings, which is quite astounding.

Edited by rpn
Link to comment

The six discussions (albeit only two being released) is likely the catalyst.   She is encouraging women to have discussion groups, about the issues using a format that at least spoofs a church missionary format.   If she did all this after the SP had asked her to quit, I get how she ends up where she is.   But I don't know how she can attend a church disciplinary council if she is enroute to Kenya and no longer in any ward officially, having moved from elsewhere to stay temporarily with family (which I think is her story).

 

I was intrigued by the ldsnewsroom discussion of disciplinary counsels.   It says that only men can be assigned to stake disciplinary counsels.   Now if this had been a news organization, I would have assumed a slip, since I'm pretty sure that the cut off  isn't priesthood v. women, but temple vs. not temple.   But the article seems to state that women aren't even equal in disciplinary proceedings, which is quite astounding.

 

She remains in her ward untill her records are moved to sa new location and a Bishop can put a hold on her records.

Link to comment

But is excommunicating them going to "protect" anyone?  In the days before the Internet, it might have been possible to insulate the saints by just removing the apostate from physical proximity with ward members.  But not now. Dehlin and Kelly can communicate just as clearly with their flocks by e-mail, podcast, etc.

 

Contrary to a belief no doubt popular in certain quarters, the Church has no interest in silencing people or attempting to interrupt any communication between them and 'their flocks'. But to allow the propagation of false teachings to continue to occur under the veneer of faithfulness would be negligence on the part of the shepherds chosen by the Lord to watch over His flock.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment

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.

Most Mormons were abolitionist in outlook. Brigham Young declared that he was opposed to slavery, but didn't think that a territory had the authority to forbid slavery if there were any slave-holders in its boundaries at the time of its founding. IOW, he repudiated Stephen A. Douglas's idea of "Popular Sovereignty." In this, he was prescient: six years later, the USSC issued the Dred Scott decision, which effectively killed "Popular Sovereignty" and ultimately led to the Civil War.

 

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.

The last time I wrote this, I got thread-banned; but it is indisputably true, and so I will repeat it anyway: The Priesthood never was, is not now, and never will be, a "civil right." Your observation is irrelevant. The two things have nothing to do with each other. You might as well have said that the Priesthood ban ended forty years after the first Superman comic was published.

 

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.

Actually the Church is on the right side -- of the issue at hand. "Same sex marriage" cannot be reconciled with LDS doctrine at any level.

The notion that there is a "right side of history" relies upon all sorts of assumptions which you seem to accept without question. They include the assumption that prevailing opinions now are always right, even though the "wrong" opinions managed to prevail in the past and for far longer. Latter-day Saints don't believe in moral relativism; we believe that what God reveals is true. We believe that right is right whether nobody does it, and wrong is wrong whether everybody does it. If there is a "right side of history," it is the Lord's side; humanity at large is frequently on the wrong side.

 

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.

That has all the intellectual depth of a bumper sticker. In reality, there has never been a US President who was eligible to pass the Sacrament; and if the Bungler of Benghazi becomes POTUS, her Priesthood ineligibility will be the least of America's worries.

 

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.

And the love we have for you doesn't allow us to ignore the reality that whenever Mormonism comes into conflict with your trendy, populist, left-leaning, politically-correct worldly philosophies, it is always Mormonism that you throw under the bus.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I think it is important to note that the Scriptures provide us with some very interesting examples of the role of women in the Church in ancient days.

 

I just returned from a temple endowment session.  With the lastest "presentation", it became clearer to me than ever before, that the role women is markedly instructed, if not codified, therein. And I don't see it as the role that you are looking for in other scripture.

Link to comment

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.

Well they verified that on their website.

http://ordainwomen.org/ordain-women-sisters-in-silence-vigil-faq/

Why did Kate/Ordain Women decide to take this story to the media?

We are not being heard in other ways. Our requests for meetings have been consistently ignored. Michael Otterson, head of Public Affairs for the LDS Church, refused to intervene to prevent the court from going forward.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...