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

[Zakuska]

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. 

 

Like i said earlier.  Im one of those returned missionaries.

 

Our main Goal though was to get a Female Member ready and trained to do the Job. Or,  If Sisters where transfered into the Area they automatically got the Job.

[bluebell]

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.

Yes, but what that actually means is your opinion.

You, for example, seem to believe it means that women were ordained to the priesthood. That is not a fact though. It's your interpretation.

[ttribe]

... 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.

 

I'm no Dehlin follower, but really?  How has he "actively" tried to "destroy faith?"

Edited June 12, 2014 by ttribe

[Zakuska]

Think harder.  There are at least two that she has bent pretty good...

[JLHPROF]

Well, Smac, so much for your plea to not become judge and jury.  I was a high request for this place.

 

Observation is not judgement.  If I observe someone defying the requests of Church leaders, publically disagreeing with established doctrine, and coming very close to breaking covenants, it is not judgement to expect disciplinary actions.

 

For the most part nobody is pronouncing her guilty or saying that she should be disciplined.  We are simply observing her actions and being not surprised at the probable outcome.  We are not passing judgement, just watching A leading to B.

[jkwilliams]

I'm not Dehlin follower, but really?  How has he "actively" tried to "destroy faith?"

 

With me, he did the exact opposite. He was one of a few people who encouraged me to try to find a place in the church in spite of my issues.

[Stang]

My father served for a short time as a branch Relief Society president while serving a mission in Argentina in the 1950's.

[smac97]

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.

Doesn't that seem a bit . . . exaggerated? The Church isn't cutting out tongues, either figuratively or literally. The Church is not "silencing" these folks. They can still write and say whatever they like.

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.

Three people out of fifteen million?

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.

Is it possible that they have also caused harm to the Church, Church members, investigators and/or others?

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.

Doesn't that seem a bit . . . exaggerated? The Church isn't kicking out "every cranky crackpot." Excommunications are actually quite rare.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

In regards to Waterman, I found this comment:

"Alan Rock Waterman said...

Zomarah,

I have no desire to take over the Corporation of the President, and I'm pretty sure Denver has no interest either. I'll be content to stand on the sidelines and watch that counterfeit implode on its own"

"Here in Sacramento I have the opportunity of assisting in cooking and serving at a church downtown that sets aside one Friday a month to feed the homeless. Other churches pick up the baton on other nights. Beginning about three years ago, several denominations began a program to allow homeless people to sleep in their buildings during the winter cold spells.

I suppose if one were to ask why we LDS don't participate in such Christian endeavors, we'd be told it has something to do with insurance.

That's the difference between a real church and a corporation; a church would take its cue from Jesus Christ, while a corporation follows the counsel of its attorneys."

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/06/uncomfortable-god.html

He appears to agree with Snuffer that the Church went off the rails not long after JS died.

Edited June 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

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.

 

CFR that Dehlin has actively tried to destroy faith.  And, CFR that Kelly shamed the men she covenanted to sustain.  These accusations strike me more as your opinion of them than something that is based in fact.

 

And regarding Dehlin, Kelly, & Waterman... I don't see political labels as having anything to do with the positions they've staked out relative to church teachings.  I don't see a valid reason to politicize this.

[USU78]

It might be significant, but the NYT only knows about it because kate kelly and dehlin contacted them.

 

And that trumps just about everything else.

[USU78]

Given our shoddy record of being on the wrong end of history as often as not, perhaps we should consider a establishing a new method for change.

 

Who you callin' we?

[jkwilliams]

I like this quote from an LDS writer:

 

A lesson from Job, which seems not without relevance today:

"We cannot use God, or our belief in God, to dismiss other people’s pain. Sometimes, this means listening to things that make us uncomfortable or challenge our beliefs. It means allowing people to speak ill of things that we think well of—including (and perhaps especially) ourselves. And it means listening compassionately those who criticize, contradict, or seek justice from God or from the human institutions that claim to represent Him. God can take care of Himself; our responsibility is to take care of each other.

"To meet our obligations to our fellow human beings, we need not believe that God is lacking in either power or goodness. We just need to understand that He does not require our assistance in dealing with challenges to His authority. We do not have to protect God from criticisms, complaints, and petitions. He is not some little first-time godling out on a test drive. He can take criticism. He can handle complaints. And He has no need to fear when human beings ask Him to do things differently. Too many people—often from positions of ecclesiastical authority—spend their time trying to make sure that God’s feelings don’t get hurt. This is how we become the Comforters when we should be listening—really listening with our hearts—to the suffering Job."

[USU78]

 

 

Not sure where to begin ... perhaps, at the beginning ...

 

BY becomes the territorial governor of Utah in 1851 and the next year, the legislature makes Utah a slaveholding territory.  So less than a decade before the Civil War, we came down on the side of slavery.  Wrong side of history.

 

Civil rights movement -- we sat that one out but decided not to extend the benefits of equality in the priesthood for another 15 YEARS after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.  Wrong side of history.

 

We've taken a definite stand against SSM by getting heavily involved in Prop 8.  In the six years since, more than a dozen states have legalized SSM and EVERY court that has ruled on the issue has found the ban on SSM to be unconstitutional.  Wrong side of history.

 

At present, women in our Church do not have the authority granted to 12-year-old BOYS.  In two years, this country will very likely elect a woman to be the "leader of the free world," yet this same woman would not be "qualified" to hand out bread in our Church.  Wrong side of history.

 

I love the saints but that love does not allow me to ignore the reality that we tend to be a little slow on the change front.

 

 

[Tacenda]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogstribtalk/58056967-71/women-mormon-ordain-blogger.html.csp

 

John and Kate speaking with the Salt Lake Tribune live. 

 

Still going on....if you want to listen.

 

Edit:  They answer the question as to why they went public with the letters.  Kate Kelly's Stake President threatened that if she didn't come out with it, he would. 

Edited June 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[USU78]

Hardly. I was very careful in my wording. I used precede instead of cause.

 

To what rhetorical end?

[ERayR]

I don't think women are less capable than men in pulling their own weight

 

I didn't say that. 

[rockpond]

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.

 

Great observations.  The silence vs fear quote is one of the reasons why I don't see this ending well for the Church.

[bluebell]

I like this quote from an LDS writer:

 

That was good.

 

It assumes that every sufferer is 'job' and of course that's not reality.  Some are job.  Some are laman and lemuel.  Some are a mixture of the two.  But regardless of how right or wrong someone is, we do need to be compassionate and loving-as much as possible.

 

It's the idea that being compassionate and loving means we can't disagree-or disagree strongly-or speak out against an idea someone else espouses that we believe is just plain wrong because they are 'suffering', that i really dislike.

 

We have to be able to be loving, while still being true to what we believe is right.  Other people's suffering doesn't have the right to co-opt our our own thoughts and feelings.

 

But i say again that i do like that quote.  We don't have to worry about being 'right' nearly as much as we all think we do, i'm sure.  There is always more room for charity.

[Storm Rider]

In regards to Waterman, I found this comment:

"Alan Rock Waterman said...

Zomarah,

I have no desire to take over the Corporation of the President, and I'm pretty sure Denver has no interest either. I'll be content to stand on the sidelines and watch that counterfeit implode on its own"

"Here in Sacramento I have the opportunity of assisting in cooking and serving at a church downtown that sets aside one Friday a month to feed the homeless. Other churches pick up the baton on other nights. Beginning about three years ago, several denominations began a program to allow homeless people to sleep in their buildings during the winter cold spells.

I suppose if one were to ask why we LDS don't participate in such Christian endeavors, we'd be told it has something to do with insurance.

That's the difference between a real church and a corporation; a church would take its cue from Jesus Christ, while a corporation follows the counsel of its attorneys."

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/06/uncomfortable-god.html

He appears to agree with Snuffer that the Church went off the rails not long after JS died.

 

Here I disagree with factual evidence that proves this individual false. We in Seattle participated with other churches to support homeless men. We brought in food stuffs and meals to serve these individuals. We did this in conjunction with Protestant churches and it has continued for several years.  I personally delivered the food tho the locations that were equipped to handle these individuals spending the night and being prepared to the next day.  Seldom, as in never, did I feel welcome. I delivered the food and they ignored me as a person.  They took the food, ignored me completely on several occasions, and then served the food.  I made a point to talk to them and then proceeded to talk directly to the homeless men.  Never once did was I engaged in a meaningful conversation with those member of the churches with whom our church participated.  

 

Too often are efforts at assisting others is discounted for those who are much more forward in proclaiming their assistance.  

[ERayR]

Given our shoddy record of being on the wrong end of history as often as not, perhaps we should consider a establishing a new method for change.

 

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[Thinking]

To what rhetorical end?

 

I was just making an observation. The 1978 revelation was not the first time that a revelation followed pressure to change.

[Senator]

 

For the most part nobody is pronouncing her guilty or saying that she should be disciplined.  .

 

It's the lesser part I'm addressing.

[ERayR]

Edit:  They answer the question as to why they went public with the letters.  Kate Kelly's Stake President threatened that if she didn't come out with it, he would. 

 

Knowing the process this statement doesn't ring true to me. 

[Grudunza]

Smac, I'll concede your point about the church not really silencing these members, that they will certainly still voice their opinions online as they have, but there is an appearance of them being silenced within the church, if they are indeed kicked out for having and sharing those opinions while being active members. And the concerted timing of this, if not just coincidental, makes it appear more deliberate.

And yes, my comments are an exaggeration, but that's the point... These are not just 3 members. Their voices and opinions hold some value to thousands more, myself included to some extent. We should look at this in an exaggerated way to get a sense of the greater impact it may have. These may be only 3 specific cranky crackpot members, but if the church removed *all* cranky crackpot members, which in a symbolic sense this could represent, that's a lot of potential disaffection.