Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Temple Recommend And Ordain Women Supporters


Recommended Posts

Have you ever really listened to them talk about their feelings for the church? Our church?

For Dehlin, the UU church seems like a good fit.

Kelly, on the other hand, still professes a testimony of the restoration which likely indicates she would feel uncomfortable anywhere other than the C of C or here with us.

 

No I haven't listened to them talk. I've just read what they've said. Not sure as that makes any difference though. I have sympathy for the situations they put themselves into. But it was their own choices that made the situation they are in. As to KK there may come a time when women are given the Priesthood. But now obviously isn't it, and organizing vocal opposition to Church leaders isn't an effective way to implement that change.

Link to comment

No I haven't listened to them talk. I've just read what they've said. Not sure as that makes any difference though. I have sympathy for the situations they put themselves into. But it was their own choices that made the situation they are in. As to KK there may come a time when women are given the Priesthood. But now obviously isn't it, and organizing vocal opposition to Church leaders isn't an effective way to implement that change.

I think hearing them express their beliefs is important. Especially if one's only exposure to them has been through sound bites and short newspaper quotes.

Kelly believes in the prophet and by her account was seeking to do what President Hinckley had suggested to lead to women's ordination. And she wanted it to happen through prophetic revelation. At some point she obviously crossed the line by acting against the counsel of her local leaders. Ultimately, I think history will look back on her kindly for having helped our church move forward in a positive way.

Dehlin, as I mentioned, seems to have more of a universalist belief system and a love of the Mormon culture and community. He's gone too far to expect to retain his membership which I think is sad considering how he started his journey. Ultimately I credit Dehlin and his work for helping us mature a little as a church (gospel topics essays, for ex). In some respects, I think that Dehlin will be remembered as Michael Quinn is now: he was right but a little too ahead of his time.

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment

I think hearing them express their beliefs is important. Especially if one's only exposure to them has been through sound bites and short newspaper quotes.

Kelly believes in the prophet and by her account was seeking to do what President Hinckley had suggested to lead to women's ordination. And she wanted it to happen through prophetic revelation. At some point she obviously crossed the line by acting against the counsel of her local leaders. Ultimately, I think history will look back on her kindly for having helped our church move forward in a positive way.

Dehlin, as I mentioned, seems to have more of a universalist belief system and a love of the Mormon culture and community. He's gone too far to expect to retain his membership which I think is sad considering how he started his journey. Ultimately I credit Dehlin and his work for helping us mature a little as a church (gospel topics essays, for ex). In some respects, I think that Dehlin will be remembered as Michael Quinn is now: he was right but a little too ahead of his time.

 

OH I know the limitations of the print media. :) But have kept up enough to see their progression to apostasy. Truly a sad thing to read about.

I wish them well, but at this point I don't hold out much hope for either one of them returning anytime soon.  :sad:

 

The Church may someday allow for women to hold the Priesthood. But I'm not going to hold my breath till that happens.  To me it would be like before the ban on Negroes holding the Priesthood was lifted. I was thrilled when it happened, but didn't organize vocal opposition to the Church because I didn't like the ban in the first place.                                                                  

Edited by thesometimesaint
Link to comment

The public advocacy and participation in apostate groups is reason to with hold a temple recommend. 

Yes it is not the belief that women should be ordained that is the problem but supporting an organization that pushes and demands change in Church doctrine.  This would be true for any issue not just the ordination of women.  The difference between the Lord's church and a church of man should be that things are done on the Lord time table and not what man thinks the time table should be.  But perhaps to Ordain Women, man or in this case women call the shots and God follows their orders.  As members, do we really want to be a part of a church where anyone can just start an group and that group can demand and force change on basic church doctrine and practices?  The Church would be anything but a house of order. It would be a house of disorder. 

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment

Yes it is not the belief that women should be ordained that is the problem but supporting an organization that pushes and demands change in Church doctrine.  This would be true for any issue not just the ordination of women.  

 

I don't think any generic support is a problem, but it would require to be on the more public advocating side of the spectrum.  Someone can support an organization without accepting everything the organizations stands for or has a position on and support can range from being a leader in it to occasionally thinking about it and believing that they may be heading in the right direction on some stuff.

Link to comment

 

The Church may someday allow for women to hold the Priesthood. But I'm not going to hold my breath till that happens.  To me it would be like before the ban on Negroes holding the Priesthood was lifted. I was thrilled when it happened, but didn't organize vocal opposition to the Church because I didn't like the ban in the first place.

It will be interesting to see if it does parallel the priesthood ban against black men and the temple marriage ban against black men/women... Meaning that at some point down the road we find out that all the reasons we believed/taught for why women couldn't hold the priesthood were wrong.

Link to comment

It will be interesting to see if it does parallel the priesthood ban against black men and the temple marriage ban against black men/women... Meaning that at some point down the road we find out that all the reasons we believed/taught for why women couldn't hold the priesthood were wrong.

 

That is going to be a tough one, since Joseph Smith retranslated the NT from saying that women could not speak in the church to women could not lead in the church.  That isn't like blacks in the priesthood where BY did it apparently as a political move to obtain statehood after the Missouri Compromise.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment

That is going to be a tough one, since Joseph Smith retranslated the NT from saying that women could not speak in the church to women could not lead in the church.  That isn't like blacks in the priesthood where BY did it apparently as a political move to obtain statehood after the Missouri Compromise.

And yet we have women leading in the church.

Link to comment

I don't think any generic support is a problem, but it would require to be on the more public advocating side of the spectrum.  Someone can support an organization without accepting everything the organizations stands for or has a position on and support can range from being a leader in it to occasionally thinking about it and believing that they may be heading in the right direction on some stuff.

Perhaps that is possible but when I read the mission statement of Ordain Women and the words that women "MUST be ordained" it is pretty hard to support that organization and disagree with the mission statement of that organization.   They say that just want the President of the Church to pray about it.  I guess they want him to get an answer to a prayer for them even though that prayer really does not represent his view.  But if the answer comes back as no, I see no reason from their mission statement that they would accept it.  They have already decided the answer for the Lord.  Women MUST be ordained and so for them the only answer from Monson is YES.

Link to comment

That is going to be a tough one, since Joseph Smith retranslated the NT from saying that women could not speak in the church to women could not lead in the church.  That isn't like blacks in the priesthood where BY did it apparently as a political move to obtain statehood after the Missouri Compromise.

Why would Brigham Young decide that blacks could not have the priesthood because his desire for Utah to become a state?  It sort of is like the argument that polygamy was ended so that Utah would become a state.  I wonder if Brigham Young and others during that period wanted Utah statehood so bad that they would have disowned the Book of Mormon so that Utah would be a state.  The argument just seem to be so petty to me.  Give up something important to get something so trivial

Link to comment

Perhaps that is possible but when I read the mission statement of Ordain Women and the words that women "MUST be ordained" it is pretty hard to support that organization and disagree with the mission statement of that organization.   They say that just want the President of the Church to pray about it.  I guess they want him to get an answer to a prayer for them even though that prayer really does not represent his view.  But if the answer comes back as no, I see no reason from their mission statement that they would accept it.  They have already decided the answer for the Lord.  Women MUST be ordained and so for them the only answer from Monson is YES.

Not everyone I know who supports OW actually wants ordination for women.  Some just want to be able to discuss the possibility without being called faithless or apostates.

Link to comment

You admit that you aren't sure what Kelly and Dehlin believe but you blame them for your children's inactivity? Is it really Kate and John who have caused your children to go inactive or is it the problematic issues that the Church has not yet effectively addressed?

Ok, there are issues in various stages of being addressed. John, especially had opportunities to give a balanced perspective. I will take Joseph Smith and Polygamy since it is a topic that has attention lately. Andrew Jenson wrote quite early in detail about the subject including a list of 27 wives. John Henry Evans, in Joseph Smith an American Prophet, wrote in detail about the polygamy in 1933. John Widstoe also discussed this same subject a few years after that. Here are three LDS writers who wrote about Joseph Smiths polygamy early. They provide evidence that it wasn`t swept under the carpet. Of course it has never really been a Sunday School lesson and I am not sure how saints are to find out about it. There are other things that could be brought out to make the Church look more positive concerning this topic. John Dehlin doesn`t look for those opportunities. I have listened to enough of his podcasts to say that he never seems to bring these explanatory or temporizing factors out. What we call "balanced" history is not presented. It is like reading Grant Palmer`s An Insider`s Story. You read page after page looking for the other side of the issues to be raised. Guess what, you don`t hear them in Grant Palmer`s book or John`s Podcasts. Of course that is at least one reason why John and Grant get along. I wish my kids could have heard some of the other side from John or Grant.

Link to comment

Not everyone I know who supports OW actually wants ordination for women.  Some just want to be able to discuss the possibility without being called faithless or apostates.

I think one can discuss the issue of ordaining women without the need to support that organization.  It is not like they own the issue.  There is a difference between discussing something and waging a campaign to get it achieved which is what the organization is all about.   For them according to their own mission statement the issue is settled.  Women must be ordained. 

Link to comment

Ok, there are issues in various stages of being addressed. John, especially had opportunities to give a balanced perspective. I will take Joseph Smith and Polygamy since it is a topic that has attention lately. Andrew Jenson wrote quite early in detail about the subject including a list of 27 wives. John Henry Evans, in Joseph Smith an American Prophet, wrote in detail about the polygamy in 1933. John Widstoe also discussed this same subject a few years after that. Here are three LDS writers who wrote about Joseph Smiths polygamy early. They provide evidence that it wasn`t swept under the carpet. Of course it has never really been a Sunday School lesson and I am not sure how saints are to find out about it. There are other things that could be brought out to make the Church look more positive concerning this topic. John Dehlin doesn`t look for those opportunities. I have listened to enough of his podcasts to say that he never seems to bring these explanatory or temporizing factors out. What we call "balanced" history is not presented. It is like reading Grant Palmer`s An Insider`s Story. You read page after page looking for the other side of the issues to be raised. Guess what, you don`t hear them in Grant Palmer`s book or John`s Podcasts. Of course that is at least one reason why John and Grant get along. I wish my kids could have heard some of the other side from John or Grant.

John has interviewed apologists and apologetic types plenty of times. His podcast gets hundreds of thousands of downloads. When was the last time you gave such a platform to an apologist?

John helped create, host, and promote a website titled StayLDS. Have you created a website helping people who struggle to stay active in the church?

The Church intentionally and willfully scrubbed Brigham Young's polygamist teachings and marriages from the Teachings of the Prophets manual on BY's life. There are any number of published statements by church leaders telling members that polygamy ended with the 1890 manifesto.

Given that the Church chose not to provide a balanced viewpoint, please explain how it was John Dehlin's responsibility to provide a balanced viewpoint and how he is then responsible for your children becoming inactive?

And I'll ask the same question as before: is it really Dehlin and Kelly's fault that your children have left or are leaving the church or is it that the Church has not effectively dealt with problematic issues?

Link to comment

Scrubbed brigham's teachings? Are you freaking kidding me? How on earth is that a fair assessments. Of course his sermons on plural marriage weren't in the book. Why the heck would they be when the book was designed to address the saints today and we are commanded not to practice it. Are we scrubbing Moses' teachings when we aren't telling everyone they need to practice the law of Moses or when we skip over specifications for the tabernacle that aren't relevant to our current walk with the Lord?

Link to comment

John has interviewed apologists and apologetic types plenty of times. His podcast gets hundreds of thousands of downloads. When was the last time you gave such a platform to an apologist?

John helped create, host, and promote a website titled StayLDS. Have you created a website helping people who struggle to stay active in the church?

The Church intentionally and willfully scrubbed Brigham Young's polygamist teachings and marriages from the Teachings of the Prophets manual on BY's life. There are any number of published statements by church leaders telling members that polygamy ended with the 1890 manifesto.

Given that the Church chose not to provide a balanced viewpoint, please explain how it was John Dehlin's responsibility to provide a balanced viewpoint and how he is then responsible for your children becoming inactive?

And I'll ask the same question as before: is it really Dehlin and Kelly's fault that your children have left or are leaving the church or is it that the Church has not effectively dealt with problematic issues?

Sure, my kids make their own decisions. The Church is being up front with the Joseph Smith papers and the essays. They are really trying. I taught them about most of the issues myself in our family. I can`t tell you how many times I heard John`s name during the discussions with my kids. John threw them rocks when they were drowning. Occasionally, John has an apologist that he often maligns or is snide to (not with Givens or Bushman though). Mostly, it seems like a shark tank over there at MormonStories during the podcasts or discussions. The blood is any controvery that can be brought up about the Church. I guess we just have to disagree and I don`t want to say any more about John. I try not to. I even joined the Facebook group to see if I could bring some balance or help the people who were still trying to stay with the Church. New people come and ask a question and it is a hopeless exercise in futility to go against the current of hate and anger thrust on these tender souls trying to find some balanced answers. As I stated before, the Church loses whether John stays a member or is excommunicated.

Link to comment

I think one can discuss the issue of ordaining women without the need to support that organization.  It is not like they own the issue.  There is a difference between discussing something and waging a campaign to get it achieved which is what the organization is all about.   

That may be true, but others feel like the one of the ways to support discussion and a way that they want to use is to support Ordain Women.  Just because you disagree with them about the appropriateness of that support, doesn't mean that removes that as a reason for their support.

Link to comment

Scrubbed brigham's teachings? Are you freaking kidding me? How on earth is that a fair assessments. Of course his sermons on plural marriage weren't in the book. Why the heck would they be when the book was designed to address the saints today and we are commanded not to practice it. Are we scrubbing Moses' teachings when we aren't telling everyone they need to practice the law of Moses or when we skip over specifications for the tabernacle that aren't relevant to our current walk with the Lord?

 

It's not an assessment... it's just a statement of what was done.  Brigham's teachings on plural marriage were instead used to support our current understanding of marriage, likely for the reason that you indicate.  In the front of the book where his life is outlined, none of his plural wives are mentioned even though they were a major part of his life.

 

Obviously we don't tell people to practice the law of Moses... likewise I didn't suggest that we should tell people to practice polygamy.  I taught seminary a few years back and the curriculum actually had us spend considerable time studying the tabernacle.

 

Those charged with creating our manuals obviously have to pick and choose what we should study.  My point was that if the church doesn't provide a balanced view of our history, why is it Dehlin's responsibility to do that for readstoomuch's kids?

Link to comment

Sure, my kids make their own decisions. The Church is being up front with the Joseph Smith papers and the essays. They are really trying. I taught them about most of the issues myself in our family. I can`t tell you how many times I heard John`s name during the discussions with my kids. John threw them rocks when they were drowning. Occasionally, John has an apologist that he often maligns or is snide to (not with Givens or Bushman though). Mostly, it seems like a shark tank over there at MormonStories during the podcasts or discussions. The blood is any controvery that can be brought up about the Church. I guess we just have to disagree and I don`t want to say any more about John. I try not to. I even joined the Facebook group to see if I could bring some balance or help the people who were still trying to stay with the Church. New people come and ask a question and it is a hopeless exercise in futility to go against the current of hate and anger thrust on these tender souls trying to find some balanced answers. As I stated before, the Church loses whether John stays a member or is excommunicated.

 

Yes, the Church is trying to be more upfront... now.  The problem is, and it does seem to be a problem for you and your kids, that they waited until after bloggers, podcasters, and the internet in general had uncovered the problems to do anything about it.  I imagine it would have been better for your kids (and I know it would have been better for me personally) had I heard about these issues from the Church first.

 

I'm glad you've joined the MS podcast facebook group.  I hope you'll keep working to provide another voice there.

 

And I agree, the Church loses whether John stays or is ex'd because the underlying problems -- the ones that cause crises of faith and anger at the church -- are still there.

Link to comment

And I'll ask the same question as before: is it really Dehlin and Kelly's fault that your children have left or are leaving the church or is it that the Church has not effectively dealt with problematic issues?

No it is not their fault that someone decides to leave the church.  It is the fault of the people.  HOWEVER if some guy is traveling around the neighborhood selling drugs or porn, does he not bear some responsibility if some people decide to buy it? 

Link to comment

Yes, the Church is trying to be more upfront... now.  The problem is, and it does seem to be a problem for you and your kids, that they waited until after bloggers, podcasters, and the internet in general had uncovered the problems to do anything about it.  I imagine it would have been better for your kids (and I know it would have been better for me personally) had I heard about these issues from the Church first.

 

I'm glad you've joined the MS podcast facebook group.  I hope you'll keep working to provide another voice there.

 

And I agree, the Church loses whether John stays or is ex'd because the underlying problems -- the ones that cause crises of faith and anger at the church -- are still there.

Most of these issues have been around long before the internet became widespread.  They existed in books and videos.  Yet the Church largely ignored it.  I really don't know why it did and even today it is very slow at the switch.  Ignoring problems do not make them go away.  Often they fester into big problems.  Perhaps the church purposely has ignored them to allow the members to decide for themselves what side they are one.  Sort of testing the members and weed out those that are really not committed.  I don't know and church should do a better job.  I don't believe the Church should hide from anything.  It should own and accept all of its history.  Even the parts that may seem a little odd to us 150 years after the fact.  The Church could spend some money and create a comprehensive work that address all the criticism that we get in great detail and hand it to all members.  Whether it is a 1000 page book or a 10 DVD set.  But I don't see that happening anytime soon.  They may just send out some good but incomplete essays every few months.

Link to comment

 As I stated before, the Church loses whether John stays a member or is excommunicated.

The Church really does not lose.  The Church will remain until the end of the world.  It will fulfill its mission.  The people who lose are those who allow people like John to influence their decision to leave.  They are the ones that will have to spend eternity trying to explain to themselves why they accepted the garbage arguments that made them lose everything they hoped to achieve throughout their eternal existence.   John needs to be exed simply because he is not helping people stay on the path to the tree of life. He is providing plenty of reasons for people to take their hand off the iron rod and lead them to the great and spacious building to be with the other mockers.  I am sure the Lord has some special things prepared for him at some point if he does not stop.  He is going to continue what he is doing regardless but at least he will not be a member anymore. 

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

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