MDalby Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 If a bishop is actively campaigning in public to try to influence Church leadership to change church policy/doctrine, does that go against the responsibilities that he has as a Church leader?http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-david/ I was trying to find quotes about that it is OK to disagree with Church leaders if you keep it to yourself but when we start to voice the difference of opinion publicly, that is when we start to veer towards apostasy.Next Question - During the sustaining portion of ward conference, would it be difficult to sustain him if he is publicly going against the revealed doctrine of revelation; i.e. we can only receive revelation for those whom we have stewardship over. The President of the Church is the only one that can receive revelation for the church as a whole and it is steadying the ark to try to influence what is not under our responsibilities. If we go against the stake president's judgment and do not sustain the bishop, is it similar to the bishops action of going against the leaders? If his stake president determines that he is fit to be bishop, does that in and of itself make it so we should also sustain him and not try to steady the ark?Thanks,MD
tyler90az Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 If he loses his position or gets disciplined the church is not true. He will not not get disciplined or lose his position 1
Alan Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 I think he is probably hoping he can off-load some of the priesthood burden onto the women.I can think of some women in our ward who would do a great job on the bishopric or as Elder's QP. Mind you, I can think of a couple who would not be so good!!!
Scott Lloyd Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 If a bishop is actively campaigning in public to try to influence Church leadership to change church policy/doctrine, does that go against the responsibilities that he has as a Church leader?http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-david/ I was trying to find quotes about that it is OK to disagree with Church leaders if you keep it to yourself but when we start to voice the difference of opinion publicly, that is when we start to veer towards apostasy.Next Question - During the sustaining portion of ward conference, would it be difficult to sustain him if he is publicly going against the revealed doctrine of revelation; i.e. we can only receive revelation for those whom we have stewardship over. The President of the Church is the only one that can receive revelation for the church as a whole and it is steadying the ark to try to influence what is not under our responsibilities. If we go against the stake president's judgment and do not sustain the bishop, is it similar to the bishops action of going against the leaders? If his stake president determines that he is fit to be bishop, does that in and of itself make it so we should also sustain him and not try to steady the ark?Thanks,MDI think what he is doing is inappropriate and shows poor judgment. But a man would have to be guilty of very egregious behavior and I would have to be certain of that guilt before I would refuse to give my sustaining vote, and this instance does not meet that classification in my mind. It's one of many things that I'm content and grateful to be able to to leave in the hands of The Lord and those who have been called to adjudicate such things. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 If he loses his position or gets disciplined the church is not true. He will not not get disciplined or lose his positionThe first sentence is absolutely false. You can't be certain of the second. 4
Lightbearer Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 If a Bishop or a Stake President of even an apostle comes out in opposition against the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve then they are guilty of apostasy and if they do not repent they should be cut off from the Church. I always follow the First Presidency (the Prophet) and the twelve... because we do not believe in the infallibility of any man. But we do have the promise from God Himself that the prophet will never lead the church astray. 1
MDalby Posted April 3, 2013 Author Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) I think what he is doing is inappropriate and shows poor judgment.Poor judgment? I can live with people making decisions that are poor in judgment. I make poor judgment decisions all the time. It is called mistakes. Is this really just a mistake and poor judgment?Scott, I agree with you that this is in the hands of those that are his leaders. It really isn't any of my business. I am just discussing this as an example. Edited April 3, 2013 by MDalby
Vance Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 If he is using the fact that he is a Bishop to, as he may suppose, strengthen his argument, then he is making a terrible mistake. Otherwise, he is entitled to his own opinion. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) Poor judgment? I can live with people making decisions that are poor in judgment. I make poor judgment decisions all the time. It is called mistakes. Is this really just a mistake and poor judgment?Scott, I agree with you that this is in the hands of those that are his leaders. It really isn't any of my business. I am just discussing this as an example.I don't like what he's doing, and it offends me that he is using a sacred ecclesiastical position to further a personal agenda on a controversial issue. I also think it arrogant for him to assume that the thing he wants to have come about is foregone and is only prevented from happening because the people are not yet "prepared" for it. He's not in a position to presume that. But as I try to conceive in my mind behavior that would cause me to withhold my sustaining vote, I only arrive at very serious offenses: criminal behavior, adultery, abuse, wanton refusal to intervene when someone is being harmed, that sort of thing. And as I already indicated, I would have to be certain of the man's guilt. Edited April 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 2
MDalby Posted April 3, 2013 Author Posted April 3, 2013 If he is using the fact that he is a Bishop to, as he may suppose, strengthen his argument, then he is making a terrible mistake. Otherwise, he is entitled to his own opinion.The question I had was not if he is entitled to his own opinion. I agree with this. My question is if he is entitled to his own opinion AND, as a bishop, is also entitled to openly/publicly voice that difference of opinion. 1
BlueDreams Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) If a bishop is actively campaigning in public to try to influence Church leadership to change church policy/doctrine, does that go against the responsibilities that he has as a Church leader?first off, I don't think what he did would be considered "campaigning." He's voicing an opinion that's against the grain, but not in a means to say that he believes should be pushed through or voted into action. Campaigning is too strong of a word for what he did. I don't know about within church responsibility. I guess if he was using his calling to promote his view as absolutely right.....then yes. At the moment and the way he mentions his calling (a quick sentence with no connection to any of his points about why women should hold the priesthood), no. He's doing it simply to voice his own desires and so that others may also voice their own:Some question whether speaking on this issue is an affront to the Church. Nothing could be further from my intent. I love and sustain the First Presidency and the Twelve. They alone direct and speak for the Church. Revelation will only come through them. But I do not believe it can come until the church body is prepared to receive it. I add my voice so that others will know of the pain many members feel from our practice of excluding women from priesthood circles. I add my voice so that others may find courage in expressing their heartfelt desires for greater blessings.I personally wouldn't feel comfortable calling this apostasy. And as long as he keeps his responsibilities in his calling and his view fairly separated, I don't see the problem of him making a small profile on a blog to state his opinion and desires. Especially when he makes it pretty clear that's it's just his opinion and desire and not some revelation for the the church.During the sustaining portion of ward conference, would it be difficult to sustain him if he is publicly going against the revealed doctrine of revelation; i.e. we can only receive revelation for those whom we have stewardship over. The President of the Church is the only one that can receive revelation for the church as a whole and it is steadying the ark to try to influence what is not under our responsibilities. If we go against the stake president's judgment and do not sustain the bishop, is it similar to the bishops action of going against the leaders? If his stake president determines that he is fit to be bishop, does that in and of itself make it so we should also sustain him and not try to steady the ark?I personally wouldn't have a problem sustaining him...anymore than I would those who are super into a political stance insomuch that they treat their views basically like doctrine. Disagreeing with some of their views is not enough for me to not sustain them. I don't know about ark steadying. It's our right to not sustain him and object. But it doesn't mean that doing so for this circumstance is correct either or will be taken all that seriously. If one continues to not support him in his calling because of our disagreement about a single view that he holds then I guess that would probably be problematic and wrong.With luv,BD Edited April 3, 2013 by BlueDreams 1
Traela Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 I would continue to sustain him (assuming there aren't other problems) but I would ask him pointedly why he is so intent on giving women more unpaid jobs. 2
Storm Rider Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 I think it is error to introduce himself as a bishop because he cannot speak as a bishop. He is speaking as a man and he is abusing his position as a bishop in this situation. The fellow has an opinion, but it has no more value than anyone else. Should he take a more vocal stand or protest in any way, then I think he would and should be replaced. 4
alter idem Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 Scott: Lloyd: I don't like what he's doing, and it offends me that he is using a sacred ecclesiastical position to further a personal agenda on a controversial issue. This is what concerns me as well. I have no problem with people having their own private positions of what they'd like to see, but I am wary when people capitalize on their ecclesiastical authority--and I think Bishops who are currently serving need to be careful not to do this. If they want to come out publicly in favor of something controversial or not in line with church policy, if would be better to wait until after they are released, IMO. 2
alter idem Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 So, a question about the 'Ordain Women' site. I'm curious, does anyone know who is behind it?
MDalby Posted April 3, 2013 Author Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) I personally wouldn't have a problem sustaining him...anymore than I would those who are super into a political stance insomuch that they treat their views basically like doctrine. Disagreeing with some of their views is not enough for me to not sustain them.BD,If I had an issue sustaining this man, it would not be due to his opinion that women should be entitled to the Priesthood. It would be due to his openly voicing disagreement with current Church policy and openly voicing a difference of opinion with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve while he was serving in the capacity of a Bishop. Edited April 3, 2013 by MDalby
MDalby Posted April 3, 2013 Author Posted April 3, 2013 I would continue to sustain him (assuming there aren't other problems) but I would ask him pointedly why he is so intent on giving women more unpaid jobs.
ERayR Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 BD,If I had an issue sustaining this man, it would not be due to his opinion that women should be entitled to the Priesthood. It would be due to his openly voicing disagreement with current Church policy and openly voicing a difference of opinion with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve while he was serving in the capacity of a Bishop.My problem with sustaining him is that what he is doing shows poor judgement.
MDalby Posted April 3, 2013 Author Posted April 3, 2013 My problem with sustaining him is that what he is doing shows poor judgement.If we didn't sustain anyone who at one time or another had actions that showed poor judgment, we would have a long list of positions that were not sustained. 2
BlueDreams Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) If I had an issue sustaining this man, it would not be due to his opinion that women should be entitled to the Priesthood. It would be due to his openly voicing disagreement with current Church policy and openly voicing a difference of opinion with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve while he was serving in the capacity of a Bishop.I just don't see that. He believes women should have the priesthood. But he doesn't disagree with the first presidency and the quorum of the Twelve as the head of the church. He understands who can get revelation on the matter. If anything, he probably sees himself in a similar place as those who desired blacks to have the priesthood before the ban was lifted. It's not that they went and tried to force their hand, but that they were developing a greater social awareness of why they wanted it. If no one talks, no one desires it, nothing happens. He's not indicated that he would fight, campaign against, or undermine the decisions of the 12. His purpose is pretty clear. Who knows, maybe it just irks me that simply voicing an opinion would be enough to put his place in the church in question. I find a number of the posts here a little over reactive. If he did so invoking the power/authority of his calling as back up to his views that would be another thing. But he didn't. Mentioning a calling (especially in the fashion that he did) isn't the same as that IMHO.Do I disagree with him? Sure. Doesn't mean I think he's just on the other side of apostasy, believe he sees himself in some campaign, or feel that this would somehow be grounds to undermine his calling as well as an affront to his responsibilities as a bishop. If he's reprimanded for his actions by those having stewardship over him and still does it....then there's a problem. Until then, he hasn't done much but made a profile saying he wished his wife could have the priesthood and that others should feel able to voice their own feelings/desires/concerns. This isn't exactly revolutionary.***this is speaking in general response to what I've seen mentioned in the thread.With luv,BD Edited April 3, 2013 by BlueDreams 3
ERayR Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 If we didn't sustain anyone who at one time or another had actions that showed poor judgment, we would have a long list of positions that were not sustained.There are mistakes and then there are MISTAKES. There is poor judgements and there is POOR JUDGEMENT.
Peppermint Patty Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 So, a question about the 'Ordain Women' site. I'm curious, does anyone know who is behind it?It looks like the person behind this is Kate Kelly:http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56096212-78/women-priesthood-church-lds.html.csp
Peppermint Patty Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 From the article: http://www.sltrib.co...ch-lds.html.cspThough the number of Ordain Women profiles is relatively small — about two dozen so far — the 2-week-old website has garnered more than 100,000 page views, Kelly said, and her local LDS leaders, male and female, have been supportive of her."We sustain the prophet and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and ask them to prayerfully consider this change," she said. "We believe that what we are doing demonstrates our faith in the gospel."Opening up the priesthood "would change the way Mormon women see themselves and live their lives," Kelly said. "It would be a way they can invest in and improve the church as an institution."Besides that, she views female ordination as helping the church hold on to its young women.Kelly points to a 2011 self-reported survey of about 3,000 Mormons who no longer believe in the church that found 63 percent of all women and 70 percent of single women cited gender issues as being the primary reason for their loss of faith. 3
MDalby Posted April 3, 2013 Author Posted April 3, 2013 There are mistakes and then there are MISTAKES. There is poor judgements and there is POOR JUDGEMENT.I totally agree. That was the basis of my point. I don't think this is simply a mistake or a lack of good judgment. I can live with mistakes and my wife has shown over the past 32 years that she can live with all my mistakes... But, I don't categorize this as a mistake or lack of good judgment.
Thinking Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 But we do have the promise from God Himself that the prophet will never lead the church astray.God Himself? I thought it was Wilford Woodruff who proclaimed that "the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."Perhaps you should change your statement.But we do have the promise from the prophet himself that God will never allow the prophet to lead the church astray.
Recommended Posts