ERayR Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Of course not. But they likely reflect a certain minority. A minority that is sizable or insignificant. The Kirtland period saw an exodous of a sizable percent of the Church including some apostles. Some returned but the Church continued and prospered without those that did not. 1
rockpond Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Yes...John supposes he is in a better position than church leaders to know the mind of God, even though John doesn't know if God exists. Brilliant! In today's upside-down, mindless world, John makes for the perfect cult of personality. Thanks, -Wade Englund- CFR that John believes he is in a better position than church leaders to know the mind of God. He has, actually, expressed (multiple times) that he does not envy the difficulty of the position that the Brethren fill.
rockpond Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 A minority that is dangling on the fringe.Regards,Pahoran Some might describe the LDS church with that same language.
ERayR Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I used the "tip of the iceberg" phrase and I wasn't necessarily suggesting that more individuals would face disciplinary councils (though it is possible, the timing suggests some type of coordinated effort since Kelly, Dehlin, and Waterman have been public figures for quite some time). What I was suggesting is that this action is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the impact it will have on the church. See my post # 496 above
rockpond Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 A minority that is sizable or insignificant. The Kirtland period saw an exodous of a sizable percent of the Church including some apostles. Some returned but the Church continued and prospered without those that did not. And according to Elder Jensen we are currently in a period of exodus rivaled only by the Kirtland days. Perhaps we could all benefit by seeking a better way to engage with the likes of Dehlin/Kelly/Waterman rather than church discipline. 1
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 The central point of the BoM is that The Lord punishes people with dark skin?? While I value what he does and would not want to see him removed merely for voicing his opinions and doubts, Dehlin does make me scratch my head sometimes with comments like that. Agreed
wenglund Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 CFR that John believes he is in a better position than church leaders to know the mind of God. He has, actually, expressed (multiple times) that he does not envy the difficulty of the position that the Brethren fill. Read SMAC's note #19 earlier in the thread. It is unmistakably implied. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 2
bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 She is facing a loss of something that's very dear to her and integral to her identity. She absolutely is, and i do not fault her one bit for the emotional toll that it must cause. However, this, unlike a robbery, is not something that is being stolen from her. If the disciplinary council happens, and if she is found 'guilty' (for lack of a better term), then she will only lose these dear and integral things if she chooses to. What i mean by that is, the ray of hope in this whole situation is that if all that i said above comes to pass (and it's not a foregone conclusion yet i don't think), she will be asked to choose between her activities in regards to OW, and her church membership. Not that such a choice would be easy for her, but if she truly believes that the LDS church is God's church, and that the ways of salvation are found only therein (as she has claimed, and there's no reason to doubt her on that), then she only need choose that over OW and nothing will be lost. If she choses OW over her church membership, then that is her cross to bear and one of her own making (and i'm not saying that in an accusatory tone but just in recognition of the natural relationship between agency, choice, and consequence). No doubt it would be devastating, but still completely within her control. 3
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Since women today are referred to in the Church as "teachers," then by your "reasoning" they already have the Aaronic priesthood. Yes...that makes perfect sense. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Deacons.
stemelbow Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I really didn't want to say anything about them, but after listening I'll say they are both being overly dramatic and seem to be playing this for publicity as much as anyone can. 2
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I also found it very touching. It did not, however, alter my assessment of the impropriety of what Kate Kelly has been doing. "Violent" is a risible and offensive way to describe the situation. She received a letter. She has been invited to attend a meeting. People will talk quietly. There will be no physical punishment. There will be no yelling or screaming. Their will be discussion and prayer.To call all of this "violent" is to abuse the word.Thanks,-Smac I suspect it would feel like an assault to most of us if we were experiencing it.
Mystery Meat Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 It's just not a fun situation anyway you slice it. But as a wise man once said, "No unhallowed hand..."
bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 That's true, it is my interpretation. But the evidence for male and female ordination in ancient times, as we think of it now, is the same. You can't make an argument against female ordination in the Bible that doesn't also apply to men. I disagree. Sethpayne and Halcerno have made such arguments, in different degrees, and they are bible scholars as far as i am concerned, much more knowledgeable and informed than most, myself included. So no, i don't believe the evidence is as strong as you believe it to be. Certainly not when coupled with modern revelation and current church doctrine, which i don't think can be ignored.
Storm Rider Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 And according to Elder Jensen we are currently in a period of exodus rivaled only by the Kirtland days. Perhaps we could all benefit by seeking a better way to engage with the likes of Dehlin/Kelly/Waterman rather than church discipline. absolutely not. They have crossed the line and the CD is appropriate if not long past do. There is patience and then there is something else. They have both long crossed the line and there is no need for further patience. Let's move on. 2
rockpond Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Read SMAC's note #19 earlier in the thread. It is unmistakably implied. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Implied? Not quite. And that's hearsay since you don't have a direct quote.
ERayR Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Yes...John supposes he is in a better position than church leaders to know the mind of God, even though John doesn't know if God exists. Brilliant! In today's upside-down, mindless world, John makes for the perfect cult of personality. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Thus the probability for the reason for this action. There now I have speculated. 1
awyatt Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 It just occurred to me that we are having a conversation about "heresy" in the 21st century. Wow! Perhaps, we can also charge Kate Kelly with being a witch while we're at it. Or perhaps, we can get Dehlin to confess to believing that the earth revolves around the sun. Hopefully, they will both see the errors of their ways before we build the bonfire. There is a difference between heresy and apostasy. The Church disciplines for apostasy, but not for heresy. -Allen
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I disagree. Sethpayne and Halcerno have made such arguments, in different degrees, and they are bible scholars as far as i am concerned, much more knowledgeable and informed than most, myself included. So no, i don't believe the evidence is as strong as you believe it to be. Certainly not when coupled with modern revelation and current church doctrine, which i don't think can be ignored. There is no modern revelation that deals with the subject of ordination for women.
jkwilliams Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 It's probably a good thing none of us is going to be involved in that disciplinary council. 2
ERayR Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 And according to Elder Jensen we are currently in a period of exodus rivaled only by the Kirtland days. Perhaps we could all benefit by seeking a better way to engage with the likes of Dehlin/Kelly/Waterman rather than church discipline. Or recognize it as a sifting period to weed the wheat from the tares once again. 1
bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 There is no modern revelation that deals with the subject of ordination for women. Exactly. No modern revelation to change the way that Christ Himself handled the issue, and instructed His followers to handle it.
bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 It's probably a good thing none of us is going to be involved in that disciplinary council. Very true. None of us have enough information or knowledge to do any good.
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 There is no modern revelation that deals with the subject of ordination for women. Yes, there is. OD-2. Thanks, -Smac
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Exactly. No modern revelation to change the way that Christ Himself handled the issue, and instructed His followers to handle it. Christ isn't on record excluding women from any position. In fact a woman was the first special witness of His resurrection.
Gray Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Yes, there is. OD-2.Thanks,-Smac OD-2 does not deal with the issue of ordination for women
Recommended Posts