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

[Avatar4321]

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. 

 

Actually, I think you just need the Stake President and High Council to excommunicate a Melchesidek Priesthood holder. Since the Bishop is the head of the Aaronic Priesthood in the ward, he could excommunicate them if necessary. I could be wrong.

[BCSpace]

UH. NO! The Church has a long established method for change, and public activism isn't it. 

 

The problem remains as there are some in the Church who don't believe that method is revelation.

[Thinking]

What happened to him?

 

According to the Dallas Morning News (October 20, 1977), Byron Marchant was "excommunicated and fired as church janitor."

[Avatar4321]

From all of the uproar I'm seeing on the Internet, this could be a very interesting time for our Church.  To my great surprise, the OW faithful and "Dehlinites" might not go quietly into that good night.  And with the power of the Internet, it's possible to organize counter activities that will be difficult to ignore.  This might just be a lot of bluster but if not, we have a new day in Mormonism!

 

I knew I made the right choice to join this Church!

 

The more news they stir up, the more they assist us in hastening work.

 

You can't kick mormonism down, we only go up.

[juliann]

This is beautifully written and a guide for all of us:

 

http://www.neylanmcbaine.com/2014/06/blessed-are-the-peacemakers.html

 

And yet, I've wept today at the news that she received a letter summoning her to a church court on charges of apostasy. Why? Because, despite the fact that I vehemently disagreed with the Ordain Women tactics and I've despised the meanspiritedness that's betrayed itself on all sides, I have loved the conversation we've been having about women in the Church. I believe women like Kate have prompted each of us to think deeply, to pray even, about how we feel as women in the Church or about women in the Church. She's forced us to ask questions that might have been uncomfortable but which, ultimately, I believe, have drawn us closer to being a compassionate, inclusive community.

 

I weep for Kate personally. She is a woman who has the possibility of spiritual banishment hanging over her. I would not wish that on anyone. Perhaps the realization that Kate is a woman and a sister who is truly sorrowing now will give each of us pause before we make that insensitive comment or refer to her in impersonal, derogatory terms. My hope is that today's news will allow us to put aside our differences, even briefly, and come together as brothers and sisters.

 

[rockpond]

This is beautifully written and a guide for all of us:

http://www.neylanmcbaine.com/2014/06/blessed-are-the-peacemakers.html

Great quote. And, yes, an excommunication of Sister Kelly is not a positive outcome for anyone.

[Avatar4321]

Huh? The OW group intervened on behalf of Kate Kelly? And they sought help from Michael Otterson, head of Public Affairs for the Church, a church employee, to interfere in a local ecclesiastical issue?

Do you understand how utterly inappropriate it would have been for Mr. Otterson to inject himself into that issue? How utterly inappropriate it was for you folks to ask him to interfere?

What on earth is going on here?!

-Smac

 

I think it's more evidence that she doesn't understand how the Priesthood works.

That's what's been so ironic about this. Even if she managed to get herself ordained, her actions have negated any priesthood she could use. Priesthood can only be maintained or controled by the powers of righteousness. When you have a spirit of rebellion, you cannot exercise priesthood power. In order to use the priesthood, we have to use persuasion, long suffering, patience, meekness, kindness, humility, and we have to follow the direction of those who have the keys.

 

It's sad, because if she truly understood the priesthood, she wouldn't mae the mistake she is making. We should all just be glad she isn't facing what those who tried to demand the priesthood faced in the days of Moses.

[halconero]

Hey Scott,

Ok. So let's set Deborah aside for a moment.

Huldah was obviously very important to Josiah. He looked to her to determine the Lord's position on the found book. Granted, that alone isn't sufficient to say she held "office" but, as you say, it is clear she was a prophetess (had the gift of prophecy).

Having said that, I think it is interesting that Israel's kings all had their court prophet(s). Samuel and Isaiah, for example. Thus, I don't think it would be unreasonable to say Huldah occupied a similar role. The text gives no indication that her prophetic call was any different from male OT prophets -- and the same applies to Deborah. The only difference between Deborah/Huldah and Samuel/Isaiah -- at least when we talk about it in our modern LDS context -- is that we read *back* into the text our preconceptions about male/female roles.

Anyway, clearly there isn't enough evidence one way or the other to draw any strong conclusions from the small bits of OT text we have. All I'm arguing is that the text, in itself, does not lend itself to the male/female priesthood dichotomy. That only appears when we bring in our own modern notions. IMO, at least.

Seth

The Old Testament does have a male/female dichotomy. While we dove have women displaying prophetic, advisory, and even (military) leadership ability we do not see any performing sacred rites or functioning in any capacity in temple worship or Levitical ceremonies.

[Erin15]

But Smac, you don't know Kate Kelly either but you are more than happy to render judgment against her.

My goodness.  Smac97 has shown a level of patience and restraint and fairness towards OW on this board that is nearly superhuman, and yet you still have a go at him.

 

Is it not enough for someone to respectfully and fairly offer up criticism?  Must they agree with you or forever be your enemy?

[Storm Rider]

Well, considering that Mormonism will likely change to fit my "populist, left-leaning, politically-correct worldly philosophies," as it did with polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, etc., I see no reason to hang my personal morality on that swinging shelf.  At the end of the day, I will have to answer for MY actions -- how I fed the hungry, clothed the naked, healed the sick, visited those in prison (i.e., stood for those who couldn't stand for themselves).  I won't be able to say, "Yes, I stood silent in the face of injustice but it's okay because my Church said so ... at least, until it changed its mind 30 years later."

 

When the Church is right (and it usually is), I stand with it.  And when it is wrong, I don't feel constrained to wait the 30-40 years until it gets the revelation to say so.  I don't see that as throwing the Church under the bus, but rather loving it enough to not settle for it being less than it can be.

 

Hello Newb, I don't think the gist of your position is wrong at all.  When we sense an injustice we cannot deny it. However, it is how we respond to these things in the Church that is so important. You begin to take your message public, instigating meetings, defiantly demanding that the leaders change their position and that you have the only answer then you have a serious problem on your hands.

 

I may sense injustice, incompetence, or just plain old wrongness in leaders, but it is not my place to do anything in conjunction with others. If I am motivated I may speak with a leader or write a letter explaining my position and seek counsel, but I will not automatically assume that I am right and that I know better.  

 

It is a matter of humility and openness. I believe that God is still the captain of the ship and he knows what he is doing.  At the end of the day, leaders bear the responsibility for their actions or inactions.  If they have done something against the will of God they will stand before the judgement seat and be condemned for their own choices. Those who may have been harmed will be blest.  

[juliann]

My goodness.  Smac97 has shown a level of patience and restraint and fairness towards OW on this board that is nearly superhuman, and yet you still have a go at him.

 

Is it not enough for someone to respectfully and fairly offer up criticism?  Must they agree with you or forever be your enemy?

 

Like you said, is it not enough for someone to respectfully and fairly offer up criticism?  Why in the world are you defining that as being an enemy? Must Seth agree with you or he is your enemy?

[Tiki]

Nobody's faith should depend on the good or bad behavior of any other mortal.

Then how is faith imparted to others? Nobody is born with Faith in Christ. We all have to be taught.

Your behavior matters. We are asked to be examples in Christ.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Tiki

[BCSpace]

Great quote. And, yes, an excommunication of Sister Kelly is not a positive outcome for anyone.

 I disagree.  Excommunication is designed to be a positive outcome for the Church. 3 Nephi 18:31 for example.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Excommunication is designed to be a positive outcome for the Church.

 

Excommunication is also designed to be a positive outcome for the individual involved. In the months before my mission, I had an elders quorum president who had previously been excommunicated. He spoke all the time about what a blessing that event had been in his life. One Sunday he brought in a shoelace that had been tied in the middle in dozens of knots upon knots and asked one of the quorum members to untangle the mess. After several minutes of frustrating effort on the part of the volunteer, the quorum president pulled out a pocket knife, cut out the tangle of knots, and neatly tied the two loose ends back together. It wasn't the perfect illustration (there was still a single knot), but we all got the point: opportunities to repent, be freed from our entanglements, and move forward are precisely what it means to have hope in Christ.

 

People who see Church discipline as something punitive, I think, reveal more about themselves than they do about what actually motivates and informs the process.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[mormonnewb]

Hello Newb, I don't think the gist of your position is wrong at all.  When we sense an injustice we cannot deny it. However, it is how we respond to these things in the Church that is so important. You begin to take your message public, instigating meetings, defiantly demanding that the leaders change their position and that you have the only answer then you have a serious problem on your hands.

 

I may sense injustice, incompetence, or just plain old wrongness in leaders, but it is not my place to do anything in conjunction with others. If I am motivated I may speak with a leader or write a letter explaining my position and seek counsel, but I will not automatically assume that I am right and that I know better.  

 

It is a matter of humility and openness. I believe that God is still the captain of the ship and he knows what he is doing.  At the end of the day, leaders bear the responsibility for their actions or inactions.  If they have done something against the will of God they will stand before the judgement seat and be condemned for their own choices. Those who may have been harmed will be blest.  

 

I don't think it's just the leaders who bear responsibility for this Church.  Dr. King once said, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

 

One of my enduring sorrows is to look in the faces of the wonderful older saints, whom in so many ways I strive to emulate.  It breaks my heart to think that the very same people who embraced me in the Celestial Room in 2013 would have blocked the door to keep me from entering the temple just 35 years earlier and for no better reason than, "That's what my leaders told me to do."  I don't see ANYWHERE in scripture where Christ has told us to cede our morality over to the apostles.  In fact, He seems to have very clearly sent us the Holy Spirit for just that purpose -- to ascertain the will of God; and presumably to ACT accordingly.

 

Now, as for not stirring up trouble and just privately stewing in our own juices, that serves to make righteousness impotent.  Certainly, it would not be wrong to speak up and band together in SUPPORT of righteous Church policy.  Yet, it would be wrong to employ the same means in opposition to flawed Church policy?  Under that kind of rubric, the concepts of right and wrong have no meaning and have been supplanted by the will of the leaders.

 

I shudder to think what kind of country America would be if people had not voiced their discontent with the will of the leaders.  We slowly but surely approach "a more perfect union" because people speak up about injustice.  And while some would say that the Church's leadership is chosen by God and therefore, does not need such "nudging along," the track record would indicate that we're far from "nudge proof."

[Storm Rider]

I don't think it's just the leaders who bear responsibility for this Church.  Dr. King once said, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

 

One of my enduring sorrows is to look in the faces of the wonderful older saints, whom in so many ways I strive to emulate.  It breaks my heart to think that the very same people who embraced me in the Celestial Room in 2013 would have blocked the door to keep me from entering the temple just 35 years earlier and for no better reason than, "That's what my leaders told me to do."  I don't see ANYWHERE in scripture where Christ has told us to cede our morality over to the apostles.  In fact, He seems to have very clearly sent us the Holy Spirit for just that purpose -- to ascertain the will of God; and presumably to ACT accordingly.

 

Now, as for not stirring up trouble and just privately stewing in our own juices, that serves to make righteousness impotent.  Certainly, it would not be wrong to speak up and band together in SUPPORT of righteous Church policy.  Yet, it would be wrong to employ the same means in opposition to flawed Church policy?  Under that kind of rubric, the concepts of right and wrong have no meaning and have been supplanted by the will of the leaders.

 

I shudder to think what kind of country America would be if people had not voiced their discontent with the will of the leaders.  We slowly but surely approach "a more perfect union" because people speak up about injustice.  And while some would say that the Church's leadership is chosen by God and therefore, does not need such "nudging along," the track record would indicate that we're far from "nudge proof."

 

For me your position confuses civil law and spiritual law.  They are not the same and they have different functions.  

 

I also reject the premise that an individual's morality is impotent by not consistently, constantly speaking out about all that is perceived to be wrong in the world.  This position you have presented leads to chaos and anarchy.  Every individual is on the streets in uproar about whatever they personally feel is immoral or unjust.  No one has any patience to observe or even stand firm in what they know to be right; they are too buys telling their neighbor and anyone who dares to lead that they are wrong.  Our society already has enough of contention and animosity between political opponents for me to enroll in strengthening that movement.

 

My previous position is to support the concept that God is in control and there is no eternal harm to a single child. There is opposition in all things; this you know to be a true principle.  There will always be heartache in the world; if it is not one thing it is another.  IF there is injustice God will correct it and those who were responsible will be held accountable.  That comforts me and strengthens me.  

 

I reject completely and totally the assumption that there is anything wrong or unjust with the manner in which the priesthood is set up and functions in the Church yesterday, today, or tomorrow.  Any member, regardless of their cause, that evolves from sincere questioning and/or disagreement to the media and to the streets and begins to enroll others saints in their rebellion should be warned and then disciplined if they continue.  Both of these individuals, regardless of their words, are condemned by their own consistent, constant actions to stand in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ. You drop your humility to put on the robes of pride and arrogance and you fall; that is also another true principle.  

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Hi PaleOne,

Having listened to several hours of John Dehlin's interviews (especially that with Brant Gardner), it became apparent to me that Dehlin was very poorly informed on anything having to do with the Book of Mormon.  I was frankly astonished as his invincible ignorance.

 

Also worrisome was the double standard he applied to publication of views.  In his case, he refused to accept advice on the abysmal lack of substance in his interviews, or in his negative interview style.  On the other hand, while clearly paranoid about any criticisms of his "Mormon Stories," he quickly shut down publication of someone else's publication of an article about him.  The article was characterized by his friends as "a hit piece,"  which it was not (as we could see when eventually published in its original form).

 

Equally shocking is Dehlin's disregard of the niceties of academic scholarship while he himself is supposed to be a doctoral student.  Something is indeed "rotten."  Fortunately, I am not one who has to decide whether something "needs to be rooted out."

Edited June 12, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[BCSpace]

I disagree.  Excommunication is designed to be a positive outcome for the Church. 3 Nephi 18:31 for example.

People who see Church discipline as something punitive, I think, reveal more about themselves than they do about what actually motivates and informs the process.

 

 

 

I think people who ignore the punitive element of Church discipline reveal a certain lack of understanding basic Gospel principles.  Without such an element, there is no possibility of repentance or salvation of the individual otherwise.

[Pahoran]

Great quote. And, yes, an excommunication of Sister Kelly is not a positive outcome for anyone.

 

That's not for you to say.

 

Excommunication can indeed be a positive outcome for all concerned, if it is done right.  It can be positive for the former member, in that it starts her on the road to repentance.  If indeed Ms Kelly is in a state of apostasy (and there is certainly prima facie evidence that she is) then her membership covenants are not a blessing to her life at present.

 

It is also a positive outcome for those who remain in the Church, because it makes clear what the Church's position is, and where the boundary is that demarcs what be taught to Church members as doctrine.

 

It is not given unto you, or me, or anyone on this forum to decide what should or should not be done in Ms Kelly's case.  We may have opinions on the matter, but they carry no weight.  We are not those who bear that responsibility.

 

But in general terms, I have always understood -- as a matter of uncontroversial, main-stream, orthodox LDS doctrine -- that anyone who presumes to correct those who stand at the head on a matter of doctrine are not merely on the road to apostasy; they've arrived, settled in, and put down roots there.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

For me your position confuses civil law and spiritual law.  They are not the same and they have different functions.  

 

I also reject the premise that an individual's morality is impotent by not consistently, constantly speaking out about all that is perceived to be wrong in the world.  This position you have presented leads to chaos and anarchy.  Every individual is on the streets in uproar about whatever they personally feel is immoral or unjust.  No one has any patience to observe or even stand firm in what they know to be right; they are too buys telling their neighbor and anyone who dares to lead that they are wrong.  Our society already has enough of contention and animosity between political opponents for me to enroll in strengthening that movement.

 

My previous position is to support the concept that God is in control and there is no eternal harm to a single child. There is opposition in all things; this you know to be a true principle.  There will always be heartache in the world; if it is not one thing it is another.  IF there is injustice God will correct it and those who were responsible will be held accountable.  That comforts me and strengthens me.  

 

I reject completely and totally the assumption that there is anything wrong or unjust with the manner in which the priesthood is set up and functions in the Church yesterday, today, or tomorrow.  Any member, regardless of their cause, that evolves from sincere questioning and/or disagreement to the media and to the streets and begins to enroll others saints in their rebellion should be warned and then disciplined if they continue.  Both of these individuals, regardless of their words, are condemned by their own consistent, constant actions to stand in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ. You drop your humility to put on the robes of pride and arrogance and you fall; that is also another true principle.  

 

So we have no role in alleviating injustice in the world because "God will correct it and those who were responsible will be held accountable"?  Those held in concentration camps in Germany must be terribly happy that you were not the President of the US during the 1940s.  "You want us to enter World War II?  Why?  God is in control and if there is injustice, God will correct it and those who are responsible will be held accountable."

 

In fact, that philosophy seems to cut against our actions in Prop 8.  Why were we urged to contribute money and vote for Prop 8?  After all, God is in control and no eternal harm will come to his children if we have SSM.  If SSM is wrong, then God will correct it and those who are responsible for SSM will be held responsible.

 

In fact, why did the Savior urge us to care for the widows and orphans, etc.?  God is in control.  And if there is any hunger, God will correct it and those who are responsible will be held accountable.  Maybe, just maybe, that is part of the reason we are here -- to be instruments of God's love for his children.  Maybe, just maybe, he uses us human beings to correct injustice.  Just a thought ...

[Pahoran]

I don't think it's just the leaders who bear responsibility for this Church.  Dr. King once said, "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

 

One of my enduring sorrows is to look in the faces of the wonderful older saints, whom in so many ways I strive to emulate.  It breaks my heart to think that the very same people who embraced me in the Celestial Room in 2013 would have blocked the door to keep me from entering the temple just 35 years earlier and for no better reason than, "That's what my leaders told me to do."

No, Newb.

If indeed you are an endowed Latter-day Saint, as you claim, then you know perfectly well that the only way you got into the Temple was by undergoing a period of preparation culminating in a fairly searching interview with your bishop. At the conclusion of that interview, he signed a document called a Temple Recommend, and you countersigned it, to show that you stand by the answers you gave him in that interview.

You also know that you subsequently had to answer the same questions put to you by a member of your stake presidency, who also signed that document.

You further know that when you went to the Temple, you had to present your Temple Recommend to an Ordinance Worker at the front desk, and you were not admitted until he had examined it.

You therefore realise that, had you showed up 35 years -- or even 35 minutes -- before your interview with the bishop, the brother at the desk would have refused you entrance, because you would not have had a Temple Recommend.

Isn't that right?

So in fact, you have absolutely no rational basis for your "enduring sorrow," do you?

I don't see ANYWHERE in scripture where Christ has told us to cede our morality over to the apostles.

What "morality?" Is it actually your position that there is something "immoral" about the gatekeepers of the Temple doing their duty?

If so, how exactly does that work?

In fact, He seems to have very clearly sent us the Holy Spirit for just that purpose -- to ascertain the will of God; and presumably to ACT accordingly.

This is true.

And since God is not the author of confusion, it is clear that if two people claim to get conflicting inspiration from the Holy Ghost, they cannot both be right.

And it is further clear that when someone who has not been sustained by the body and is not known to the Church as having been called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof, stands up to claim that those who have been so sustained, and are known to have been thus called, are out of the way, and that God has revealed to him (or her) what the Church "really" ought to be doing, then that person is an out-and-out usurper, pretender and apostate.

I once saw someone in this forum claim that "God" had revealed to him that the Church is supposed to embrace "same sex marriage." Quite apart from the doctrinal impossibility of embracing such an abomination, the notion that God would bypass all the leaders He placed in the Church He set up, and reveal His will to some anonymous cypher instead, was so hilariously entertaining that it kept me chuckling for the rest of the day.

 

Now, as for not stirring up trouble and just privately stewing in our own juices, that serves to make righteousness impotent.  Certainly, it would not be wrong to speak up and band together in SUPPORT of righteous Church policy.  Yet, it would be wrong to employ the same means in opposition to flawed Church policy?  Under that kind of rubric, the concepts of right and wrong have no meaning and have been supplanted by the will of the leaders.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. I can understand why someone who outright rejects the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ would imagine that, but since the Lord has chosen apostles and prophets, and speaks to them from heaven and gives them commandments, we are not simply relying upon their will.

 

I shudder to think what kind of country America would be if people had not voiced their discontent with the will of the leaders.  We slowly but surely approach "a more perfect union" because people speak up about injustice.  And while some would say that the Church's leadership is chosen by God and therefore, does not need such "nudging along," the track record would indicate that we're far from "nudge proof."

The Church is not America. America is a secular nation with its own problems; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Kingdom of God on earth. What applies to your country does not apply to the Lord's Church.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Erin15]

Like you said, is it not enough for someone to respectfully and fairly offer up criticism?  Why in the world are you defining that as being an enemy? Must Seth agree with you or he is your enemy?

It's funny you should say that.  I recall the last time I posted here on this subject last year you rebuked me for criticizing the "wonderful faithful LDS women" who were leading the OW movement.  When I warned that they were on a path that led to apostasy, you claimed what I said was "shameful."

[Storm Rider]

So we have no role in alleviating injustice in the world because "God will correct it and those who were responsible will be held accountable"?  Those held in concentration camps in Germany must be terribly happy that you were not the President of the US during the 1940s.  "You want us to enter World War II?  Why?  God is in control and if there is injustice, God will correct it and those who are responsible will be held accountable."

 

In fact, that philosophy seems to cut against our actions in Prop 8.  Why were we urged to contribute money and vote for Prop 8?  After all, God is in control and no eternal harm will come to his children if we have SSM.  If SSM is wrong, then God will correct it and those who are responsible for SSM will be held responsible.

 

In fact, why did the Savior urge us to care for the widows and orphans, etc.?  God is in control.  And if there is any hunger, God will correct it and those who are responsible will be held accountable.  Maybe, just maybe, that is part of the reason we are here -- to be instruments of God's love for his children.  Maybe, just maybe, he uses us human beings to correct injustice.  Just a thought ...

 

You are barking up the wrong tree and that type of facile commentary does work with me and ignores almost everything I have said.  Enjoy your day.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't know if anybody else has noted this, but the incidents involving Bro. Dehlin and Sis. Kelly are publicity "stunts" for want of a better phrase on their parts.   The Church's disciplinary procedures are highly confidential and the only way third parties would know about them is if the person to be disciplined decides to go public.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Ron Beron]

King James Bible
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.