Kenngo1969 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 What covenants is Kelly breaking? I believe she is a returned missionary, or, if not, that she married her spouse in the Temple. If either one of those is true, she is endowed. If she is endowed, she's breaking covenants she made in the Temple.
awyatt Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 If the SP put her on informal probation AFTER she moved permanently (how is he even allowed to do that, when jurisdiction is up to the bishop?); and her bishop didn't call a DC until AFTER that, how do they even have jurisdiction over her. True they can just not forward the records on (and in this case as she is moving to Kenya, with a stop in Utah enroute), but how does that maintain their jurisdiction when members are assigned to the congregation in which they actually live? I've never read in the handbook that they have authority to refuse to forward records to conduct DC. Rpn, see my explanation (from the Handbook) in my comment here. -Allen
Senator Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I believe she is a returned missionary, or, if not, that she married her spouse in the Temple. If either one of those is true, she is endowed. If she is endowed, she's breaking covenants she made in the Temple. It's not your place to make that determination publically. 1
Zakuska Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I believe she is a returned missionary, or, if not, that she married her spouse in the Temple. If either one of those is true, she is endowed. If she is endowed, she's breaking covenants she made in the Temple. Its my understanding (most likely wrong) that in such a case (covenant breakers) excommunication is actually preferable. Because it places her back in the pool of the unwashed masses and makes her less culpable by giving her a chance to repent and go back through the process of renewing the covenants and coming back into full fellowship.
The Nehor Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 It's not your place to make that determination publically. Not officially but it is pretty self-evident anyways. 2
awyatt Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 And are we not going to talk about how ironic it is that men are subjected to High Council DC and women (apparently even those who are endowed) remain within the bishop's jurisdiction? This means that women do not have the protection of a larger group who are designated to present their position and presumably has greater chance that some might not feel intimidated and just follow the leader even if they don't think it right to do so --- not saying this is the DC intent, just acknowledging the reality for those subject to the proceedings? Of course it also means that the information is not as widely disseminated since there are only five people there instead of 14 in a SP DC. It isn't "men" that are subjected to a stake disciplinary council, but only Melchezidek Priesthood holders when the likely outcome of the council is excommunication. In all other instances, including where a MP holder will probably not face excommunication, the issue is handled by a bishop's disciplinary council. And, one other small point: In a stake disciplinary council, there are 15 participants and 16 attendees. Formal members of the council include the high council or permitted substitutes (12 members), the stake president (1 member), and two stake presidency councilors (2 members). The 16th attendee is the stake clerk, who is there to record (make notes) of the proceeding. -Allen 1
rockpond Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 You can have it again. Actually, I can't have that view again. And I wouldn't want to. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 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. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969]. And no matter if you agree with them or not, your membership becomes questioned and up for review.You just had to go and bring the BYU-UofU sports rivalry into this, didn't you! 1
Senator Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Not officially but it is pretty self-evident anyways.Oh, in that case... Then I guess it is ok to speak of publicly.
The Nehor Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Oh, in that case... Then I guess it is ok to speak of publicly. This but unsarcastically.
rockpond Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Great quote from Maxine Hanks via Neylan McBaine's "Blessed are the Peacemakers" post... "Maxine Hanks, who herself was one of the September Six and has since returned to the Church as a mentor to many: "Now is not the time for rancor, when we've evolved so very far beyond past fears. Now is the time for healing, restoring, fulfilling our Church. I know that God is trying to heal this Church. And only we can make that happen. This truth will remain my focus. I pray for John and Kate, and for their Bishops, their Stake Presidents, and for any Seventies and Apostles who might be able to help them find a better way to resolve this tension."" 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I said it once before (at least I think I said it) the church can be a big tent church...but it can't at the same time. It can be a big tent church to the extent that sinners of all shapes and sizes have a place here. Nobody is perfect. Yet, at the same time, folks like Dehlin who have actively go around trying to destroy faith and uses his membership in the church as a tool, in the end likely don't have a place in the tent. Likewise, Sister Kelly, put herself in opposition to the leaders of the Church. Publicly. She did everything she could to shame men she had covenanted to sustain. I am not sure there is a place in the tent for someone like that either. I suppose it is possible that this will cause more resignations. It is truly a tragic situation. But resignations shouldn't (and apparently don't) play a part in determining the right course of action. As mormonnewb said, perhaps this will lead to more of the "progressive" members leaving. I hope not. But that is their choice. I do think that the time is coming where it is going to be harder and harder for people who can't separate their personal political labels (progressive, libertarian, conservative, etc.) and what they think is appropriate action in a public arena from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and how it should look and operate to find a place in the tent. My thoughts.
Senator Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 This but unsarcastically. Well, Smac, so much for your plea to not become judge and jury. I was a high request for this place.
Popular Post jkwilliams Posted June 12, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 12, 2014 Great quote from Maxine Hanks via Neylan McBaine's "Blessed are the Peacemakers" post... "Maxine Hanks, who herself was one of the September Six and has since returned to the Church as a mentor to many: "Now is not the time for rancor, when we've evolved so very far beyond past fears. Now is the time for healing, restoring, fulfilling our Church. I know that God is trying to heal this Church. And only we can make that happen. This truth will remain my focus. I pray for John and Kate, and for their Bishops, their Stake Presidents, and for any Seventies and Apostles who might be able to help them find a better way to resolve this tension."" Thank you for posting that. It seems that we've all (myself included) been so busy analyzing what all this means and which side we're meant to be on that it's easy to forget that we're talking about 3 real people. If I were still a believer, I would be saddened at the loss of any member from the church; even as a hardened apostate, I can't help but feel sorry that these people are going through what has to be a very painful experience. 6
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 When has a man ever been called to a Relief Society calling? Male missionaries in small branches sometimes hold those callings
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Perhaps a good thing or else the whole load would be dumped on them. Then we would hear a different complaint. I don't think women are less capable than men in pulling their own weight Edited June 12, 2014 by Gray
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 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. I don't have a reference. I do know of a returned (Elder) missionary whose duties included relief society president
Grudunza Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) You can have it again.Eh, I don't think so. My understanding of Fowler's stages is that you don't tend to go back once you cross into a new one. And though "Iron Rods" can become "Liahonas," the Liahonas don't tend to revert back to Iron Rods.I have also found both Dehlin and Waterman valuable as voices related to our faith. Dehlin seems to bounce sharply between marginal belief and doubt and Waterman I only resonate with about 70% of the time and seems to have an ax to grind in some respects, but I would find it unfortunate to lose those voices or have them perceived now from a different perspective that is outside the fold. And I think the more controversial aspects of their discourse would gain power from that, with them almost becoming martyrs to their conspiratorial bent (Waterman in particular on the conspiracy angle, which is where I usually part ways with his ideas).Someone posted a Game of Thrones quote on Facebook that I found relevant, something to the effect that cutting out someone's tongue doesn't silence them so much as to show that you fear what they have to say. If it were one person being called into question, now and then, I wouldn't have this perception, but all of these people being served notice at once seems like a concerted effort and feels oppressive for an organization that has recently declared it wants everyone in the tent, even if their butt is sticking out the side. To my understanding, Dehlin and Waterman may be flawed in some of their reasoning and intentions but have also helped many to keep their butts in the tent. If we kick out every cranky crackpot Mormon with doubts and personal takes on church history and such, some of my favorite brothers and sisters will be outside the tent, and the inside may not feel quite as welcome to me, either. Edited June 12, 2014 by Grudunza 1
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) 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. It's a fact that women are identified in roles in the Bible that we now identify as priesthood roles. That's not my opinion. Edited June 12, 2014 by Gray
ksfisher Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 If the SP put her on informal probation AFTER she moved permanently (how is he even allowed to do that, when jurisdiction is up to the bishop?); and her bishop didn't call a DC until AFTER that, how do they even have jurisdiction over her. True they can just not forward the records on (and in this case as she is moving to Kenya, with a stop in Utah enroute), but how does that maintain their jurisdiction when members are assigned to the congregation in which they actually live? I've never read in the handbook that they have authority to refuse to forward records to conduct DC. And are we not going to talk about how ironic it is that men are subjected to High Council DC and women (apparently even those who are endowed) remain within the bishop's jurisdiction? This means that women do not have the protection of a larger group who are designated to present their position and presumably has greater chance that some might not feel intimidated and just follow the leader even if they don't think it right to do so --- not saying this is the DC intent, just acknowledging the reality for those subject to the proceedings? Of course it also means that the information is not as widely disseminated since there are only five people there instead of 14 in a SP DC. A bishop can put a "hold" on the movement of membership records if there is the possibility of the member facing church discipline. This is to allow the priesthood leader who is most knowledgeable of the situation to deal with the problem rather than another leader having to reinvent the proverbial wheel.
jkwilliams Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Male missionaries in small branches sometimes hold those callings Once on my mission we were in a branch with 3 active members, so we took turns giving the talks and teaching Sunday School, priesthood meeting, and Relief Society. But we weren't officially called. I've never heard of that before.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 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. I know a returned Elder who was Relief Society president in his branch during his mission. The main consideration for even forming a new branch or ward is the number of active priesthood holding men. Women aren't really considered in the equation.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 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- That is not specific enough to really be responsive.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I believe she is a returned missionary, or, if not, that she married her spouse in the Temple. If either one of those is true, she is endowed. If she is endowed, she's breaking covenants she made in the Temple. I can't think of any. At least that she's broken publicly.
JLHPROF Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I can't think of any. At least that she's broken publicly. Think harder. There are at least two that she has bent pretty good...
Recommended Posts