Tacenda Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted this elsewhere, thought it worked here better even:There are 12,000 members in Kenya, 41 congregations. Depending on where she is located she might be able to have a close relationship with her fellow saints or be forced to have a long distance one.Given her bulldozer approach as demonstrated in the two temple marches and her own descriptions of how she handled missionsry meetings (iirc she used thephrase 'those elders didnt know what hit them' or something close and finally her mother's description of her as a person who has always gone out and made what she wants to happen, i see it as likely for her to start up the OW discussion proselyting among the Kenyan Saints who are likely little prepared for it depending where she makes her home base. Is it right for her to introduce these faithful Saints to a controversy they are unfamiliar with, have little or no background to judge it in context from someone they will likely accept at face value as just a typical, though out going LDS.I think it wisdom to not disrupt a congregation/mission/stake with issues that detract for them from much more important, more immediate needs. Given the range of economic and governmental stability in Africa, I am not educated enough to judge hat the crucial issues are for LDS there, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kelly's agitation is seen as a first world issue that doesn't begin to address the immediate needs of the local saints and as such only adds a burden of confusion and mistrust of the leaders they may need to rely on to survive.I can see that her agitating for women's rights in Africa would be detrimental to the missionary work, and how things could get out of hand if Kate remains a member, the government might frown on any women rights campaigning. But oh, how that one possibility for a woman to be equal, would give the African women insight to a woman's capabilities, if that's the route their spirit took them. Serving with the keys of the PH on their heads. But I'm talking as if I don't believe women have those keys yet, when in actuality I think every human being is blessed with them.
rockpond Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Is this Gods Church? or is it mans Church?Man's rules can be changed by popular demand/vote. Gods can not.IF this is not Gods Church, then why would you want to be a member? I certainly wouldn't be.There was a time when I had this same clear cut black & white view.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 If all disciplinary councils are unchristlike, then Christ Himself is unchristlike. I'm not aware of Jesus' participation in a DC. However, I do think they are sometimes necessary - for instance, in the case of child or spouse abuse.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 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. You don't see prophets like Isaiah doing that either.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 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. Amen, and amen. We cannot grow as moral agents unless we are willing put forth the effort. 1
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I used to be a bishop and I have served on two high councils. I have participated in numerous DCs and ran a couple myself. I understand their purpose. I disagree with the approach. I find the justifications for using them such as the offending member is better off due to covenant and all that. Using them for members who have committed "grievous" sins I believe diminishes the atonement of Christ. And for such purposes they are used capriciously. For someone like Kate Kelly I understand that the church is using to to keep her in her place so to speak and likely the leaders think they need to protect the members. I get that though think there are other ways to accomplish the same ends.What other church's do this regularly to its members these days. I don't think public disagreement with church policy should be grounds for excommunication, but I think, for example, anyone who is a danger to members in the ward (as in actual physical harm) should be excommunicated and not reinstated.
Calm Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 r. He's not her bishop, after all.Have her records been transferred somewhere else, such as wherever she is going in Kenya? If not, even if she isn't there he is still her bishop.Is it better for her and the issue itself to in a court that is the most likely to be familiar with her and the issue as hand, in a temporary court hastily drawn together in Utah of people who do not know her at all or just what they've read and heard, or waiting until she gets to Kenya where an excommunication may have much more far reaching effect on the relatively new faithful community that is probably totally unaware of what is going on, would make it difficult for her to put in the past and move on or for members to trust her if this was the first exposure to her. If the court takes place before she gets there and she decides whether to continue unrepentant in her OW work, the Kenyan Saints will know where she stands and can make informed decisions. Otoh, if she reconsiders and repents, what a wonderful place for a new start with plenty of good and eminently valuable good works to put one's heart and soul into on par in value IMO to what she is doing now IF it had been done in accord with God 's instructions of how change is to be promoted among the faithful. 2
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 A matter of perception. It all depends on the importance attached to the roles in question. They may be inequitable but in the opposite direction of your perceived inequality. There is no role in the church that can't be filled by a priesthood holder. Women, by tradition, are blocked from most roles in the church.
Calm Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Given that there is no revelation prohibiting women from the priesthood, and scriptural precedent in support of it, I'd say the proscription against women's ordination falls into the realm of opinion.But I doubt church leaders who establish what doctrine is for our faith...or at least he doctrine we are accountable for acting in tune with currently see it that way.
Calm Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 There is no role in the church that can't be filled by a priesthood holder. Women, by tradition, are blocked from most roles in the church.Priestholders cannot be in the presidencies of YW, Primary or Relief Society. They cannot be teachers in YW and RS. They cannot hold stake and general positions in these organizations.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 But I doubt church leaders who establish what doctrine is for our faith...or at least he doctrine we are accountable for acting in tune with currently see it that way. I'm sure they don't, but I think we should have learned, after our error with the priesthood ban, that mere tradition is not enough justification for a policy that treats people inequitably.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Priestholders cannot be in the presidencies of YW, Primary or Relief Society. They cannot be teachers in YW and RS. They cannot hold stake and general positions in these organizations. They can if there aren't enough women to fill the roles - ie in the cases of small branches.
eddie Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 There is no role in the church that can't be filled by a priesthood holder. Women, by tradition, are blocked from most roles in the church.When has a man ever been called to a Relief Society calling? 1
ksfisher Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I used to be a bishop and I have served on two high councils. I have participated in numerous DCs and ran a couple myself. I understand their purpose. I disagree with the approach. I find the justifications for using them such as the offending member is better off due to covenant and all that. Using them for members who have committed "grievous" sins I believe diminishes the atonement of Christ. And for such purposes they are used capriciously. For someone like Kate Kelly I understand that the church is using to to keep her in her place so to speak and likely the leaders think they need to protect the members. I get that though think there are other ways to accomplish the same ends.What other church's do this regularly to its members these days. So you are familiar with disciplinary councils, but like I said, don't understand their purpose. Nor do you seem to understand how the mercy of Christ is applied in such a council. 1
ERayR Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 There is no role in the church that can't be filled by a priesthood holder. Women, by tradition, are blocked from most roles in the church. Perhaps a good thing or else the whole load would be dumped on them. Then we would hear a different complaint.
busybee Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Kate Kelly has posted a response - http://ordainwomen.org/excommunication/ I didn't see a link here for it.Speaking as a life-long woman in the church. UGH!!!
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 You don't know Kate Kelly and you are judging based on info you have, I did the same for her bishop. I have judged Kate Kelly based on her public actions. There is no ambiguity, no "other side of the story" to the behaviors I have criticized. On the other hand, Kate Kelly is publicly insulting her ecclesiastical leader. There is plenty of ambiguity about what her bishop has done. We know virtually nothing about the circumstances behind his decision. I initiating a DC after she moved seems cowardly to me. Huh? What's "cowardly" about it? Would the bishop be "brave" if he had sent the letter a few weeks earlier? Send it to her new leaders and let them take care of it. Out of curiosity, may I ask why you are proposing this? Is it simply a matter of propriety? Or are you concerned about the sufficiency of her current bishop's "spiritual" jurisdiction and authority? Or is it something else? Thanks, -Smac
Popular Post awyatt Posted June 12, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 12, 2014 I'm not sure how her former bishop even has authority to excommunicate her. He's not her bishop, after all. This comment has been made many times in this thread and in other places. This is the formal way that such scenarios are handled, from Handbook 1, section 6.2.7, under the heading "Jurisdiction in Special Circumstances": "If a member who needs Church discipline moves to another ward before disciplinary action is taken, the bishops of both wards consult to determine where the action should be taken. They consider such matters as the accessibility of key witnesses and the need for continuing efforts to encourage repentance and restoration to full fellowship. If the bishops determine that the bishop of the former ward should take the disciplinary action, he retains the membership record until the action is taken. Otherwise, he transfers the membership record and confidentially informs the person's current bishop of the circumstances that warrant Church discipline." That being said, there may not be two bishops to confer together in this case. My understanding is that KK is effectively "in transit" (prolonged as it may be) and has not arrived in her new ward yet. In fact, the timing on this could very well be related to her bishop (the one in D.C.) wanting to bring this matter to a conclusion before her move is complete. KK has, after all, been placed on informal probation already, which is a form of Church discipline. I can easily understand why her bishop and SP would think it is best to get it all sorted out before the move is complete. -Allen 6
Calm Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 But oh, how that one possibility for a woman to be equal, would give the African women insight to a woman's capabilities, if that's the route their spirit took them. Serving with the keys of the PH on their heads. But I'm talking as if I don't believe women have those keys yet, when in actuality I think every human being is blessed with them.Have you had much experience with women whose troubles are focused not on having equal voice and power as men, but who focus on getting clean water and food for their children to keep them healthy and growing, who need a decent education so once there in the public view she will be taken seriously (a sad fact of humanity that the plight of those in need is not enough, it must be packaged to attract the world's attention). I have no clue about the Kenyan and greater African culture but I suspect giving the Priesthood to women would have a very different effect in their culture than ours.And if the culture is highly sexist, I don't see giving the priesthood to women as changing that anymore than having them partake of other covenants men do such as baptism. Holding the Priesthood won't make a woman equal even in that one point if the rest of the culture is oppressed. A slave who has the priesthood is still a slave. Equality does not come in compartments.I have no clue what the effect would be in Kenya. I can guess what it might have been in Russia 20ish years ago who saw itself as a leader of equality for women but that equality amounted to in many cases just a title change, the female professors were sexually harassed, treated like pets the male adminstrators were fond of, sent out for coffee and booze while the male professors did their political power plays and got drunk, got their names on the research the women did or wouldn't allow them to be published. Giving the Priesthood to the women in terms of equality would have had little effect. They wouldn't have been allowed to do anything except as a protege of a man. Now the benefits of being able to bless their own children...that might have had a much greater impact given the frequent lack of the husband in the home, even ones thought of as good husbands nd fathers. The whole Priesthood dynamic was different. It was not u common for leaders to apostasized when released becaused that was in their culture an attack on their competence and reputation. I remember one incident in a nearby former Soviet country where a released bishop refused to give up possession of church property and funds and attempted to take the ward to start a new church.Basics of the Gospel must be learned, basic needs met before actual progression occurs and not just cosmetic upgrades that hide abuse and corruption beneath.There is a huge variation of culture in the world and the impact of Priesthood for many women in distant parts would be impossible to determine for most of us with our lack of experience. My Russian insight is 20 years out of date. 2
bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 They can if there aren't enough women to fill the roles - ie in the cases of small branches. Do we have an references to support this statement? I have just never heard this before and would like to see something official on it.
Popular Post bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 12, 2014 Given that there is no revelation prohibiting women from the priesthood, and scriptural precedent in support of it, I'd say the proscription against women's ordination falls into the realm of opinion. Gray we've been over and over this. The above statements are your opinions only, and ones that most in the church do not agree with or find scriptural support for. Of course you can espouse them, but presenting them as if they are fact and that it is the current doctrine of the church which is merely opinion is really overreaching. Especially when we know that the prophet and apostles flatly disagree with your interpretation of the scriptures. 5
ksfisher Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2014/06/paying-the-price-for-patriarchy/ Gina Colvin kicks in her 2 cents.
stemelbow Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) When threads are about individuals and their situations they seem to take off like wildfires. Since I'm spotty in showing up here I often don't arrive until 17 pages have filled. I have no particular input. I feel bad that people find themselves in these situations. I have my opinions about both people involved, at least to some extent, but I'd prefer to leave my stupid opinions to myself right now. I will say, I don't really get either one of them. And I wish them the best--hoping positive for each results from this, as is no doubt intended for them. Edited June 12, 2014 by stemelbow
bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2014/06/paying-the-price-for-patriarchy/ Gina Colvin kicks in her 2 cents. Wow. There's a lot of malice in that blog, and even a threat or two for those who are doing things Colvin doesn't like. She's a little scary.
bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 When threads are about individuals and their situations they seem to take off like wildfires. Since I'm spotty in showing up here I often don't arrive until 17 pages have filled.I have no particular input. I feel bad that people find themselves in these situations. I have my opinions about both people involved, at least to some extent, but I'd prefer to leave my stupid opinions to myself right now. I will say, I don't really get either one of them. And I wish them the best--hoping positive for each results from this, as is no doubt intended for them. All threads concerning OW seem to end up like this. It's one of those hot-button issues in the church.
Recommended Posts