stemelbow Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 All threads concerning OW seem to end up like this. It's one of those hot-button issues in the church. yep. Gay rights issues take off too. Two issues I like to comment on. So I'm always late to the party. Oh well. I have nothing of worth to say, so I really should keep my trap shut and read along anyway.
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I have sat in on at least a dozen DCs and even ran a few. Sure everyone is nice and caring and concerned. I did not say they were not. But IMO there are almost always better ways to deal with these things. And they are administered capriciously. If there are say inactive members living together in a ward they rarely are called in for a DC. But an active members messes up and they are, and usually when they have confesses. I believe the ideal that Jesus pays for our sins and that we become white as snow. I don't think we ned and extra level or does of punishment and public humiliation. Personal repentance is enough. A few thoughts: 1. I think disciplinary councils are, on the whole, fairly rare. My sense is that when Bishops are working with someone who is going through the repentance process, most of the time (a substantial majority of the time, actually) some sort of "informal" discipline or probation is used. Disciplinary councils are only used for very serious transgressions (murder, incest, apostasy, serious transgression while holding a prominent church position, predatory transgression, recidivism, "widely known" serious transgressions). 2. I think the Brethren and local leaders recognize that excommunication is an extremely serious remedy, and percentage-wise the chances of an excommunicated person returning to the Church is not good. I think this is why disciplinary actions are generally geared toward leniency. I have participated in perhaps twenty disciplinary councils at the stake and ward levels. All of them have involved "serious transgressions," but not a one of them has resulted in an excommunication. The brethren involved move heaven and earth to find ways to keep the individual on the path of repentance and involvement with the Church. That said, none of the councils I have participated in have involved a person in open rebellion. Sadly, that mindset generally leaves little room for the humility that must attend a disciplinary council, and also less leeway for the brethren tasked with convening a disciplinary council. 3. I agree with you that "personal repentance" is enough in many cases. But certainly not all cases. Can you perhaps agree that there are some circumstances where disciplinary councils are necessary? If not, then can you explain why the Lord has included various scriptures pertaining to the Church meting out discipline (D&C 42:28, D&C 102, D&C 42:80-93, D&C 107:72, D&C 134: 10)? Thank you, -Smac
ksfisher Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 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. She never passes up an opportunity to slam the church or church leadership.
busybee Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Who will her new leaders be in Kenya? How familiar will they be with her history? Is OW known much outside the US? Will she be living in one are along enough for her leaders to get to know her or will they be traveling around as much?Maybe the bishop was not given an accurate date for her leaving or assumed she'd go straight to Kenya so misjudged it, but does not want to drop the mess into the laps of her new leaders...perhaps in hopes that she will leave any possible resentment behind on his shoulders and not project it on to her next leader so healing will be more effective if everyone focuses on it.Good luck to her in Africa, home to some of the most patriarchal societies around!!! LDS women in Africa have far more "authority" than their non-LDS counterparts, of that you can be sure. Karma etc. etc.
ERayR Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 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. And a lot of ignorance as to policy and procedures.
ksfisher Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 2. I think the Brethren and local leaders recognize that excommunication is an extremely serious remedy, and percentage-wise the chances of an excommunicated person returning to the Church is not good. I think this is why disciplinary actions are generally geared toward leniency. I have participated in perhaps twenty disciplinary councils at the stake and ward levels. All of them have involved "serious transgressions," but not a one of them has resulted in an excommunication. The brethren involved move heaven and earth to find ways to keep the individual on the path of repentance and involvement with the Church. That said, none of the councils I have participated in have involved a person in open rebellion. Sadly, that mindset generally leaves little room for the humility that must attend a disciplinary council, and also less leeway for the brethren tasked with convening a disciplinary council. In my experience excommunications have been the result of the person involved indicating that they had no intention forsaking the sin that brought them to the council. 2
busybee 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.As i said, "feminism" isn't big in African societies.
wenglund Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) I guess my question is 'if it is good for these members to either face excommunication or change their actions' (if it is God's will, for example, as the church obviously believes it is), then what does it matter what the fall-out is? Excellent! In this day and age in particular we need to be reminded of the critical difference between "principle-based leadership" and "poll-based leadership." To me, this applies in secular as well as religious matters. In fact, poll-based leadership has become so commonplace within the secular world, that not a few existing church members and former members have mistakenly assumed it to be the case within the LDS world. If nothing else, these two publicized excommunications may send a clear signal that Church leadership is principle-based and not poll-based, and that appropriate change within the Church is not a function of 70's throw-backs, where bumper-stickers, placards, and mantras of "we shall over come" carry the day, but where God continues to rule from on high. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited June 12, 2014 by wenglund 4
ksfisher Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 And a lot of ignorance as to policy and procedures. I don't think that Colvin is ignorant. I think that it's, as bluebell stated, malice.
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Do you really think that Kelly, Dehlin, and Waterman will be the only members we lose from this? Tip of the iceberg. First, I had hoped we could abstain from making predictions about what will happen at these disciplinary councils. Oh, well. Second, can you provide any examples of there being a mass exodus from the Church following the excommunication of a notable individual? Sonia Johnson? The September Six? Or what about people who resigned in lieu of discipline (Grant Palmer)? Third, I think the Church is rightly concerned with the welfare of the Saints. But at the end of it all, I believe the Church is led by God, and the Brethren are led by God, as are the local leaders of the Church (collectively). The Church therefore has an obligation to adhere to the Scriptures. That will, on occasion, lead to unpopular decisions. The fact that the Church is being criticized is, in some ways, indicative that it is guided by what is right, rather than what is popular. Thanks, -Smac 4
bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 She never passes up an opportunity to slam the church or church leadership. Does she consider herself to be a faithful member, worthy to hold the priesthood should it be offered, or is she more an outsider to the church? I honestly have no idea who she is.
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 If my only friends were those that agreed with me, I'd have no friends. People can disagree -- even strenuously -- and the idea of "enemies" doesn't enter into the picture. And if you consider Smac's treatment of OW as fair then OK. We have different views. And guess what, I don't think you are my enemy. Besides, Smac is my cousin (well, the son of my Mom's cousin). Smac goes after me -- and I go after him. We have very different viewpoints on many issues. Discussing differences is part of what makes life a joy. We're related?! Ha! I had no idea! We'll need to arm wrestle at the next family reunion (I have a desk job, so you'll no doubt win that one). Thanks, -Smac
Tacenda Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 https://www.lds.org/friend/1984/10/martin-luther-defender-of-justice-and-seeker-of-truth?lang=eng "President Joseph F. Smith said that “Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, and all reformers, were inspired in thoughts, words, and actions to accomplish what they did for the liberty, and advancement of the human race. They paved the way for the more perfect gospel of truth to come.” (Improvement Era, “Editor’s Table: Fountain of Truth,” June 1907, page 629.) 1
busybee 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. Never in my 50 years in the church have I ever heard of a priesthood holder filling the positions of Relief Society Pres (or counsellor), Primary Pres, (or counsellor)or YW Pres (or counsellor) In the years before the YM/YW program when it was still MMen/Gleaners ( I think) there was always a married couple who served as Supervisors (i think that was the name of the calling in those years). So, sorry, but you are incorrect.
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 What covenants is Kelly breaking? Let's not go there. She's been accused of apostasy. We wouldn't know that but for her decision to make it public. Discussion about Kate Kelly and her covenants is not within our province. Thanks, -Smac 3
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 When she began holding public demonstrations and news conferences demanding the Church change to accommodate her demands. It is not our province to make such declarations. Kate Kelly has been charged with apostasy. It is up to her priesthood leaders to determine whether than charge is meritorious. We as individuals should not publicly speculate about such things. Thanks, -Smac
busybee Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) They can if there aren't enough women to fill the roles - ie in the cases of small branches. No they can't. Sisters will meet in combined meetings in small branches if there are not enough to fill those callings. There are many small branches that don't have the 3 hour block but only a 2 hour block if they don't have enough members to fill callings ie they have Sacrament meeting and then a lesson period. Men Never serve in the R/S or YW Edited June 12, 2014 by busybee
JLHPROF Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 First, I had hoped we could abstain from making predictions about what will happen at these disciplinary councils. Oh, well. It's not really a prediction. More an observation of the obvious. This was always going to be the conclusion. I have never heard of a disiplinary council that reversed the expected end result unless the person immediately repented and changed. They won't so the outcome is not a prediction, but an unavoidable result. Second, can you provide any examples of there being a mass exodus from the Church following the excommunication of a notable individual? Sonia Johnson? The September Six? Or what about people who resigned in lieu of discipline (Grant Palmer)? There aren't any. In fact the only recorded "mass exodus" (if you can even call it that) from the Church was when polygamy was announced in England in the 1850s. Nothing else has ever caused more than a tiny blip.
ksfisher Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Does she consider herself to be a faithful member, worthy to hold the priesthood should it be offered, or is she more an outsider to the church? I honestly have no idea who she is. I believe, from what I've read on her blog, that she is an active member in her ward in New Zealand. I'll admit to reading her blog regularly, but I also will admit to rubbernecking at traffic accidents. There's much similarity between the two.
JLHPROF Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 What covenants is Kelly breaking? Well, I can think of at least 2 of the 5 main temple covenants that if not breaking, are being bent quite a bit...and covenants aside, the Church is an organization with regulations in place. If a regulation is violated membership is questioned. It's no different than violating the bylaws of any other organization that a person claims membership in. If a bylaw requires you to wear a red shirt to every meeting and you insist on wearing a blue shirt, you are in violation of that organization's membership requirements. And no matter if you agree with them or not, your membership becomes questioned and up for review.
sethpayne Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 We're related?! Ha! I had no idea! We'll need to arm wrestle at the next family reunion (I have a desk job, so you'll no doubt win that one).Thanks,-Smac Yep! My mom, Lynette, is your Dad's 1st cousin. I spent many many many hours with your grandma, my great-aunt Sadie, as a kid and always loved hearing stories about her missions etc... I even remember going up to SLC when she was serving at the temple there (I think.... maybe it was family history). Remember I was at the screening of the documentary your dad did about the El Paso exodus? I think you were in the kitchen getting things ready so we didn't cross paths. BTW -- anyone who has not watched this documentary absolutely must get their act together. The faith of the Saints in the Mexican colonies was incredible. And my wife, who fled Vietnam -- due to Communist persecution -- with her family was deeply touched by this story. My Mormon family always makes me proud. http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Refuge-El-Paso-Mormon/dp/146211153X
rockpond Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 First, I had hoped we could abstain from making predictions about what will happen at these disciplinary councils. Oh, well. I am still hoping for a good outcome. But the Kelly DC is being held in absentia. And from what I've read, Dehlin & Waterman were told to resign or face excommunication. Second, can you provide any examples of there being a mass exodus from the Church following the excommunication of a notable individual? Sonia Johnson? The September Six? Or what about people who resigned in lieu of discipline (Grant Palmer)? No. But it's a new day... the internet and social media have changed the landscape. Third, I think the Church is rightly concerned with the welfare of the Saints. But at the end of it all, I believe the Church is led by God, and the Brethren are led by God, as are the local leaders of the Church (collectively). The Church therefore has an obligation to adhere to the Scriptures. That will, on occasion, lead to unpopular decisions. The fact that the Church is being criticized is, in some ways, indicative that it is guided by what is right, rather than what is popular. I'm just not convinced that this decision is being led by God and I don't see it as adhering to scripture.
mormonnewb Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Does she consider herself to be a faithful member, worthy to hold the priesthood should it be offered, or is she more an outsider to the church? I honestly have no idea who she is. I've heard her on a few Mormon Matters podcasts and I believe she is active and serving a calling in her ward in New Zealand. That being said, I'm sure that some would consider her unworthy of the priesthood (or even membership in the Church). On a side note, I find our keen interest in someone's status as an insider/outsider troubling. I think we use it as a way to easily dismiss those with whom we disagree. After all, if they aren't a "real Mormon," how could their observations about the Church hold any weight? We don't require that in other contexts. You don't need to be a politician to comment on political issues or an athlete to comment upon sports. In fact, the most respected sports commentators are almost exclusively NON-athletes (e.g., Bob Costas, Bryant Gumble, etc.). No one says to them, "Hey, you're not an ACTIVE football player. How dare you comment on the use of steroids in the NFL?" Nor do you need to be a current and active Mormon to have useful insights about the Church. In fact, an outside perspective can actually add to the discourse as I often witness on this board in comments from, say, our Catholic friends. What's the thing about adding other's truth to our own? Note: I should be clear that I'm not accusing bluebell of using insider/outsider status to dismiss others. This is more in response to other comments I've seen in this thread and others. Edited June 12, 2014 by mormonnewb 1
wenglund 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. Women are blocked from the most common and important role in the church--i.e. servant/member? I must have missed that memo. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
sethpayne Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 It's not really a prediction. More an observation of the obvious. This was always going to be the conclusion. I have never heard of a disiplinary council that reversed the expected end result unless the person immediately repented and changed. They won't so the outcome is not a prediction, but an unavoidable result. There aren't any. In fact the only recorded "mass exodus" (if you can even call it that) from the Church was when polygamy was announced in England in the 1850s. Nothing else has ever caused more than a tiny blip. I hope you are wrong. I think there are a few ways this could go. I remember a few councils over the past few years that have been cancelled or where excommunication was not the end result. Perhaps it will be the same here. And, although I sympathetic with Kate Kelly, I have disagreed with her chosen tactics. This hasn't really been touched on in this thread but what really surprises me here is John Dehlin. He's been doing his thing for years and years now so I'm a bit perplexed as to why this is happening now. Perhaps there has been some activity I'm simply unaware of.
Recommended Posts