Bishop Publicly Campaigning For Women To Hold Priesthood - Against Church Policy?

[Calm]

I wonder on what basis she believes this? Are there some statistics I don't know about that show that male priesthood holders are more likely to remain active than women and non priesthood holder males?

There are stats that demonstrate LDS males are as active as LDS females, something that is unusual among Christian faiths. There seems to be an assumption that it is the priesthood that causes them to be more active...but perhaps it is something else (perhaps it is having a role that is uniquely different than women so that men are essential in the day to day running of the faith down to the smallest detail)...and perhaps having the priesthood would not have the same effect on women as it does on men since women tend to be already more committed to an organized faith for a variety of reasons.

Second, what happens if that day does not come? Is this man setting people like you up for a fall? For a crisis of faith? For apostasy? For further public opposition to the Church as a pressure tactic to attempt compulsory change in the Church's doctrine?

President McKay (and maybe others) received a revelation that said "not yet" when it came to the priesthood ban for blacks. What if the Prophet received a revelation that said "never in this lifetime" after expectations of such were driven up by the insistence of those like this Bishop who have the certainty that such a revelation in a positive way will come? After being told by many that they deserve the Priesthood but then are denied it, how many would lose faith?

Which is what they did with the September 6. I can accept it happening once as the church is always evolving similar to us as individuals. For them to do it again though shows that they truly do not value freedom of speech or free agency. The devil is the one who proposed that we have no free agency not Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you should look at it as the Church valuing truth and the teaching of truth as a divine calling.

And the Church has continued to censure professors at BYU who have gone to the media or taught their classes teachings that are seen as contrary to the doctrine of the Church. My memory says there have been others let go from high profile jobs or callings because of their public stances that taught the Church was wrong in some fashion.

Do you think the Church should just stand by and allow anyone, but especially those who possess some authority to teach false doctrine?

[smac97]

The Bishop is doing nothing but expressing his personal views.

No, he's not. He is trading on his ecclesiastical calling when expressing his views.

Moreover, I do not think that bishop are free to express their personal views while holding such a calling.

My father-in-law is his stake's patriarch. He deliberately avoids discussion of politics or any other topic which is potentially controversial. He censors expression of his views precisely because of the church calling he holds. He would never identify himself by his ecclesiastical calling, or express a controversial opinion which is critical of and adverse to the Church's doctrine, or make such an expression publicly. The bishop being discussed here has done all of those things.

It would be a different story if he preached his view from the pulpit or anywhere in church.

It would be a worse story, but not a different one.

If he gets punished the church would be infringing on a fundamental value of the constitution Freedom of Speech.

Nonsense. The First Amendment restrains the government from infringing on the right to Free Speech.

As you know, the church believes the Constitution is divine. So what is it, is the consitution divine or not?

Is this a false premise or what? And have you stopped beating your wife yet?

The church would basically being saying to all members do not say anything besides what we tell you.

Baloney.

Which is what they did with the September 6. I can accept it happening once as the church is always evolving similar to us as individuals. For them to do it again though shows that they truly do not value freedom of speech or free agency. The devil is the one who proposed that we have no free agency not Jesus Christ.

So if the Church expects its bishops to not publicly criticize the doctrines of the Church, it's acting like the devil.

Wow. Thanks for playing!

-Smac

Edited April 3, 2013 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

No, he's not. He is trading on his ecclesiastical calling when expressing his views.

Moreover, I do not think that bishop are free to express their personal views while holding such a calling.

My father-in-law is his stake's patriarch. He deliberately avoids discussion of politics or any other topic which is potentially controversial. He censors expression of his views precisely because of the church calling he holds. He would never identify himself by his ecclesiastical calling, or express a controversial opinion which is critical of and adverse to the Church's doctrine, or make such an expression publicly. The bishop being discussed here has done all of those things.

Which is why I'm starting to question whether he really is a bishop. He's not acting much like it in this instance.

[Calm]

Which is why I'm starting to question whether he really is a bishop. He's not acting much like it in this instance.

He wouldn't be the first. There was a bishop who came out publicly for gay marriage, IIRC.

[tyler90az]

He is clearly using his status as bishop to give weight to his endorsement of the campaign. Not cool, in my book.

In the about me section he says he is a Bishop. Clearly he puts that because it is part of his identity. He even goes so far to say, "I love and sustain the First Presidency and the twelve." Where do you get the idea that he is saying he is BIshop to give weight to his endorsement?

"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’m a Mormon. I believe in women. And I believe women should be ordained."

If he did put it to add weight it shows that it is not non-members or slightly actives that are supporting this. It is regular members and people who have dedicate their lives to the church. If you are a bishop you have earned your right to speak your personal opinion through years of dedicated service.

The U.S. Constitution pertains to civil government. It does not govern private organizations such as the Church of Jesus Christ, and it does not compel the Church to allow its members to do and say anything they want and still be granted the privilege of membership or standing in the Church.

Still if we think it is divine we should follow it also

"Free agency" is a misnomer. The correct scriptural terminology is moral agency or simply agency. And the principle does not grant to people freedom from consequences associated with their choices or behavior.

Interesting

[Calm]

Interesting

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/06/moral-agency?lang=eng

In years past we generally used the term free agency. That is not incorrect. More recently we have taken note that free agency does not appear in the scriptures. They talk of our being “free to choose” and “free to act” for ourselves (2 Nephi 2:27; 10:23; see alsoHelaman 14:30) and of our obligation to do many things of our own “free will” (D&C 58:27). But the word agency appears either by itself or with the modifier moral: “That every man may act in doctrine and principle … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (D&C 101:78; emphasis added). When we use the termmoral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.

[tyler90az]

You know what David, I appreciate your sharing. You and all the others have given me courage to put my profile on the Ordain Women website.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

When called to serve, we are called to teach the doctrines of Christ and to accept this calling understanding our duties and limitations and freedom. The Church can only take action in reference to there calling. The Church is here to teach and enforce God's law, not man's, our duty here is to obey the law of the Land. We can say what we like in this Nation governed by law. If we are to serve in God's kingdom we must practice full fidelity at all times. Those in leadership are not allowed to lead or infer that we should do otherwise. If we what to do whatever we want we must accept the consequences. This is what good men do...he cannot publicly teach and infer what he thing those whom God have called to lead his Church. The "Prophet Joseph Smith" taught that it is contrary to the economy of God to give revelation for those called to lead" (Paraphrase), read D&C 134 and you will see the role of the Church in relationship with it laws, and the doctrine that the Church cannot do anything to infringe on the rights of a citizen. And the laws of the Nation in which he lives. He is using media and public forums to extend the pulpit to teach what he thinks is right. A Bishop is still a Bishop no matter where he stands, not just when behind a pulpit. If God will not allow the ordination of women and the Apostles do what others think they should they will cease to speak for The Lord...which is why we have them there, or why God does. Christ allowed one of his 12 to betray him, but could not let him go unpunished, nor avoid the heartache he had to endure for betraying him. This Bishop must also choose which he wants more, to serve God, or seek the praise of men...mankind that is. All women who go through the Temple are already ordained, Priestesses (hope I spelled this right) and Queens unto the Most High God to one day "rule and reign" with him. Women also in some cases have Priesthood duties they perform for other sisters, who are anointed to become what I just mentioned.

P.S. Edit, I messed up the quote fuction nd put my words in you post...repaired.

The Bishop is doing nothing but expressing his personal views. It would be a different story if he preached his view from the pulpit or anywhere in church.

When called to serve, we are called to teach the doctrines of Christ and to accept this calling understanding our duties and limitations and freedom. The Church can only take action in reference to there calling. The Church is here to teach and enforce God's law, not man's, our duty here is to obey the law of the Land. We can say what we like in this Nation governed by law. If we are to serve in God's kingdom we must practice full fidelity at all times. Those in leadership are not allowed to lead or infer that we should do otherwise. If we what to do whatever we want we must accept the consequences. This is what good men do...he cannot publicly teach and infer what he thing those whom God have called to lead his Church. The "Prophet Joseph Smith" taught that it is contrary to the economy of God to give revelation for those called to lead" (Paraphrase), read D&C 134 and you will see the role of the Church in relationship with it laws, and the doctrine that the Church cannot do anything to infringe on the rights of a citizen. And the laws of the Nation in which he lives. He is using media and public forums to extend the pulpit to teach what he thinks is right. A Bishop is still a Bishop no matter where he stands, not just when behind a pulpit. If God will not allow the ordination of women and the Apostles do what others think they should they will cease to speak for The Lord...which is why we have them there, or why God does. Christ allowed one of his 12 to betray him, but could not let him go unpunished, nor avoid the heartache he had to endure for betraying him. This Bishop must also choose which he wants more, to serve God, or seek the praise of men...mankind that is. All women who go through the Temple are already ordained, Priestesses (hope I spelled this right) and Queens unto the Most High God to one day "rule and reign" with him. Women also in some cases have Priesthood duties they perform for other sisters, who are anointed to become what I just mentioned.

P.S. Edit, I messed up the quote fuction nd put my words in you post...repaired.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[tyler90az]

Just to let everyone know when you submit a profile they do ask what your callings are. It is possible Dave just did it because he was asked.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just to let everyone know when you submit a profile they do ask what your callings are. It is possible Dave just did it because he was asked.

Do they try to verify identity?

[Scott Lloyd]

When called to serve, we are called to teach the doctrines of Christ and to accept this calling understanding our duties and limitations and freedom. The Church can only take action in reference to there calling. The Church is here to teach and enforce God's law, not man's, our duty here is to obey the law of the Land. We can say what we like in this Nation governed by law. If we are to serve in God's kingdom we must practice full fidelity at all times. Those in leadership are not allowed to lead or infer that we should do otherwise. If we what to do whatever we want we must accept the consequences. This is what good men do...he cannot publicly teach and infer what he thing those whom God have called to lead his Church. The "Prophet Joseph Smith" taught that it is contrary to the economy of God to give revelation for those called to lead" (Paraphrase), read D&C 134 and you will see the role of the Church in relationship with it laws, and the doctrine that the Church cannot do anything to infringe on the rights of a citizen. And the laws of the Nation in which he lives. He is using media and public forums to extend the pulpit to teach what he thinks is right. A Bishop is still a Bishop no matter where he stands, not just when behind a pulpit. If God will not allow the ordination of women and the Apostles do what others think they should they will cease to speak for The Lord...which is why we have them there, or why God does. Christ allowed one of his 12 to betray him, but could not let him go unpunished, nor avoid the heartache he had to endure for betraying him. This Bishop must also choose which he wants more, to serve God, or seek the praise of men...mankind that is. All women who go through the Temple are already ordained, Priestesses (hope I spelled this right) and Queens unto the Most High God to one day "rule and reign" with him. Women also in some cases have Priesthood duties they perform for other sisters, who are anointed to become what I just mentioned.

P.S. Edit, I messed up the quote fuction nd put my words in you post...repaired.

I suspected that was the case. Much clearer now. Thanks.

[CASteinman]

If he loses his position or gets disciplined the church is not true. He will not not get disciplined or lose his position

This is baloney. There is actually a reason he could be disciplined.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do they try to verify identity?

I ask, because I'm wondering how easy it would be for some anonymous poser to go on there, submit a bogus photo and claim to be a bishop or whatever.

This whole discussion may be much ado over what might turn out to be nothing more than typical Internet deception.

He wants us to know he's a bishop, but he's not willing to tell us who he is? If he's worried about privacy, why put up a picture of his family?

This is all very mysterious.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

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.

I am not sure if it is campaigning or not. Here is why it is not so clear. He is lending voice to a campaign. An assertive, aggressive campaign. When you do that, are you campaigning or just voicing your opinion in support of a campaign?

I don't know that the difference is so huge that making the distinction is valid.

I think I would vote to not sustain him -- not because he is unworthy, nor because I disagree with his views, nor even because he appears to be very significantly ignorant on some important doctrines, but because he intentionally did something that was not needful but that would cause a rift in the congregation. There are sacrifices a Bishop must make and being silent is one of them. I am sure that other people who have been Bishops have an ability to lend support to that notion.

For that reason, I would make sure my vote to not sustain was recorded.

Edited April 3, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

It looks like the person behind this is Kate Kelly

It is pretty obvious she is highly involved if you look around the website. I believe that the core group is composed of fairly small set of Lawyers in the DC area and Southern California perhaps encouraged by some old school Sunstone Feminists.

[CASteinman]

From the Trib article:

"The group quotes Mormon founder Joseph Smith, saying he hoped to make the all-woman Relief Society "a Kingdom of Priests," and sees female ordination as realizing that vision."This in my opinion is a classic case of taking something out of context. The Joseph Smith qoute this is taken from states:

It might be more out of context than that. These remarks were made by Joseph Smith while Men were in the Room and under the original view of the Relief Society as being a type of "masonry". There are a variety of ways that this very obscure statement could have been misrecorded and could now be well misunderstood.

[CASteinman]

The Bishop is doing nothing but expressing his personal views.

Yes, but this is not necessarily a good thing (after all personal views can be apostate) and even if it is not exactly forbidden to have those beliefs -- what he did can be worse -- in the manner and venue by which he expresses it.

[Tacenda]

I ask, because I'm wondering how easy it would be for some anonymous poser to go on there, submit a bogus photo and claim to be a bishop or whatever.

This whole discussion may be much ado over what might turn out to be nothing more than typical Internet deception.

He wants us to know he's a bishop, but he's not willing to tell us who he is? If he's worried about privacy, why put up a picture of his family?

This is all very mysterious.

If you listen to the MS podcast with John Dehlin that I posted on the "Ordain Women" topic, Kelly Kate mentions this bishop. I think he's real.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you listen to the MS podcast with John Dehlin that I posted on the "Ordain Women" topic, Kelly Kate mentions this bishop. I think he's real.

Does she identify him by full name and give his ward?

[CASteinman]

There was a bishop who came out publicly for gay marriage, IIRC.

Cite please? If you are thinking of Kloosterman, I don't think you have got his statements correct.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is pretty obvious she is highly involved if you look around the website. I believe that the core group is composed of fairly small set of Lawyers in the DC area and Southern California perhaps encouraged by some old school Sunstone Feminists.

One of her quotes in the Tribune article and his statement on his profile sound very similar. LIke orchestrated talking points.

Tacenda just said Kelly mentions him on Dehlin's podcast.

It's looking more and more like a small but vocal group, very tightly knit, trying to generate attention out of proportion with their size and significance. I doubt there's much in the way of grass-roots movement or groundswell about it.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

I ask, because I'm wondering how easy it would be for some anonymous poser to go on there, submit a bogus photo and claim to be a bishop or whatever.

I see no reason to doubt that he is at least in a Bishopric. I admit, he does seem a tad young to be a Bishop, though I have known some younger than that, they are not common.

I am sure that with a small effort he could be identified. I would start by looking at Bishops in Missouri -- and who were lawyers, if I was so inclined.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see no reason to doubt that he is at least in a Bishopric. I admit, he does seem a tad young to be a Bishop, though I have known some younger than that, they are not common.

I am sure that with a small effort he could be identified. I would start by looking at Bishops in Missouri -- and who were lawyers, if I was so inclined.

He didn't say bishopric. He very directly said he is currently serving as bishop.

And why Missouri? His profile doesn't even give that much identification.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

If I were his Stake President, I would call him in for a PPI and I would focus on this: "As sweet as the blessings of priesthood service have been, equally bitter is the exclusion of women I love from this service. "

I would ask him if he had worded that badly or if that was how he really felt, that it was "bitter" for the women in the Church -- or if he personally felt bitter.

If either of those things were true, I would seek his release with alacrity -- and I would tell him that it was happening and I would explain that it was not because of his views on women being ordained but on his views about it being bitter and on his views of holding that out to the world to see. I would also mention that it was not very wise to do things divisive in the Church as a Bishop.

I would add that in his release, he would have more freedom to express those views of his without any concerns (as long as he does not verge to apostasy, which does not seem like he is interested in) -- and he may view that as a positive thing, if he wishes.

Edited April 3, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

It's looking more and more like a small but vocal group, very tightly knit, trying to generate attention out of proportion with their size and significance. I doubt there's much in the way of grass-roots movement or groundswell about it.

uhhmm.... I think its perhaps 60-40? A core group of lawyers and activists started it up but others have said "Hey me too!".