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

[CA Steve]

So if there is gender equality in the church, how many women will be sitting in judgement of those accused of apostasy?

[Tacenda]

So if there is gender equality in the church, how many women will be sitting in judgement of those accused of apostasy?

They'd have to go through their husbands to give an answer. 

[Zakuska]

Were you CALLED and SUSTAINED as RS Pres or were you asked to preside over the RS until a sister could be called to the position. There is a difference.

I think the answer to that is in my original statement.

[smac97]

No.

Yes.

In fact all OD-2 does is establish that the answer from God to the question "Can black men be ordained to the priesthoood" was yes.

No, that's not all it did. It speaks of "promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood."

Please provide corollary promises from "prophets and presidents of the Church" that all of our sisters who are worthy may receive the priesthood. I'm not aware of any.

The OD-2 states that God "by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood."

Please provide a corollary revelation that every faithful, worthy woman in the Church may receive the holy priesthood. I'm not aware of any.

Unfortunately all we have to support the priesthood ban on women is tradition that we seem to have inherited from contemporary Christian culture.

No, we have quite a bit more than that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I would have to disagree with your last statement.  OD-2 is NOT a revelation.  It is the announcement of a revelation having occurred.  It is the result of a revelation having occurred.  But it does not contain a revelation within it.  It is not God speaking to us but an announcement from the GA's that a revelation was received.  It is no more a revelation than the preface to the D&C is for stating that revelations were given or an article discussing the first vision in the Ensign.  It just refers to the occurrence, it is not the revelation received.

The letter was presented to the body of the Church by N. Eldon Tanner, who read it and then said: "Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord."

There are all sorts of revelations given in scripture which are something other than a verbatim transcript. That does not mean that the scriptures aren't binding on them, or that we can disregard the Scriptures as not being revelatory.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

So if there is gender equality in the church, how many women will be sitting in judgement of those accused of apostasy?

The same number as are men in the Relief Society General Presidency.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

I also though Kevin expressed it well.

Let me present an analogous situation, which came to mind as I listened to Kate Kelly and John Dehlin talk about how "being Mormon" is in the "blood/DNA": I am an attorney licensed in the State of Utah. If someone were to say that I was "born" an attorney, or that being an attorney is "in my DNA," and that I am an attorney no matter what, and the Utah State Bar can't take away my attorneyness, then I would say "Um, no. I may have some of the attributes of an attorney, but I can only truly say I am an attorney if I meet certain requirements in terms of training/education/preparation and personal conduct. I am only an attorney so long as the Utah State Bar says I am an attorney. It has power over me insofar as I claim the status of "attorney." It can take away that status. It cannot do so arbitrarily or capriciously, but it can do it. There are procedures in place to address situations where an attorney licensed by the Bar engages in conduct which contravenes the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. In serious cases, that can mean disbarment. A disbarred attorney is no attorney at all. He cannot function as an attorney. He has none of the rights and privileges of that designation. He cannot go around and tell people that he is an attorney. He is ... something else.

I value my bar license. It allows me to do things which benefit my family and, to some extent, society in general. It would be very hard for me to lose my bar license. I would lose my livelihood. It would be embarrassing. There would be some social opprobrium. But if I steal money from a client, or lie to a judge, or do something else which constitutes a serious violation of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, then I might get disbarred. I can't thereafter blame the Utah State Bar for these adverse consequences flowing from my own actions. I also could not say "Eh, doesn't matter. I'm an attorney, and nothing the Utah State Bar does can take that away from me!"

This is somewhat comparable to membership in the Church. We choose to join it, stay in it, and adhere to a particular code of conduct. We receive blessings as part of that membership. But if we violate the code of conduct, if we defy the Church, if we disregard counsel and instruction, if we publicly agitate against and antagonize the Church, then we run the risk of losing that membership or having it restricted.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I gave you a rep point for not only a good analogy, but using a word (opprobrium) that I had to look up.  It's always good to learn something.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have a hard time believing that three notifications in the same week are merely coincidental. If nothing else, I doubt very much a stake president or bishop would initiate these proceedings without going up the chain of command.

Even if that had happened, it would not contradict the fact that the decisions are made on the local level.

[CA Steve]

The same number as are men in the Relief Society General Presidency.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes because Relief Society positions are somehow comparable and equivalent in quantity, quality and responsibility  to  Bishops, Elders Quorum Presidents, Stake Presidents, High Council, Presiding Bishopric, Seventies, Apostles and Prophet.

Edited June 12, 2014 by CA Steve

[Scott Lloyd]

My faith is not impacted by policy decisions coming forth from SLC.

But perhaps your personal attitude ought to be influenced thereby in some respect. Mine certainly is.

[Gray]

Yes.

No, that's not all it did. It speaks of "promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood."

Please provide corollary promises from "prophets and presidents of the Church" that all of our sisters who are worthy may receive the priesthood. I'm not aware of any.

The OD-2 states that God "by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood."

 

You're confusing the commentary on the revelation with the actual revelation, which essentially was a single word: "yes"

Please provide a corollary revelation that every faithful, worthy woman in the Church may receive the holy priesthood. I'm not aware of any.

 

Not necessary, as no claimed revelation has ever been put forth banning them from it. 

No, we have quite a bit more than that.

 

I keep reading comments like this, but the "more" is never forthcoming _

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Thanks!

Edited June 12, 2014 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

The letter was presented to the body of the Church by N. Eldon Tanner, who read it and then said: "Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord."

There are all sorts of revelations given in scripture which are something other than a verbatim transcript. That does not mean that the scriptures aren't binding on them, or that we can disregard the Scriptures as not being revelatory.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Actually in the D&C the Lord is speaking in every instance except when the item is clearly NOT a revelation but a letter, a vision, or teaching of the Prophet.  Only a revelation is a revelation - God revealing something to man.  Everything else is just man talking about God.

 

I can accept prophetic statements as being inspired, but they don't meet the definition of revelation - the "revealing" part, wherein God says "here's how it is".  When a Bishop is inspired (feels) to call an assistant Nursery Worker we call it revelation, but God didn't reveal anything.  Church history is riddled with people who felt inspired to do something only to have it not be the will of God.  The only will of God is what God actually reveals to man - "Hey, do this!".  All else is our best guess and we hope we understood correctly.

 

It is important to differentiate between inspired, revealed, commanded, taught etc.  They don't all carry the same significance.  And you are right, the scriptures contain them all.

[ERayR]

But perhaps your personal attitude ought to be influenced thereby in some respect. Mine certainly is.

 

I couldn't think of a way to say it without the possibility of getting banned.  Thanks.

[smac97]

Yes because Relief Society positions are somehow comparable and equivalent in quantity, quality and responsibility  to  Bishops, Elders Quorum Presidents, Stake Presidents, High Council, Presiding Bishopric, Seventies, Apostles and Prophet.

Ah. So the structure of God's Church is to be determined by nose-counting, is it?

I acknowledge that women are not ordained to the priesthood, and that they have some different responsibilities than men. But I reject that this state of affairs is man-made. I reject that this difference makes women less valuable than men in the eyes of God.

I was surprised to observe your contempt for the Relief Society. In my experience, the Relief Society president in a ward has huge influence in the ward overall, on par with or even more so than the High Priest Group Leader or the Elder's Quorum President.

Thanks,

-Smac

[halconero]

.

Agreed. Apostasy is just as primitive. The very worst horrors of the great Catholic Church involve just this issue. Someone had the temerity to BELIEVE differently than the majority. He must die! Now, fortunately, we won't drown and burn anyone at the stake. But we still think we can silence "falsehoods."

Did that EVER work for the Catholic Church? Did intimidating scientists into silence make the sun revolve around the earth? Of course not. Did burning priests at the stake (presidency) stop the Reformation? Of course not.

About the only thing more ridiculous than these excommunications is that I've WILLINGLY embroiled myself in a debate that should have been resolved FOUR centuries ago. I guess next week, I'll spend my time debating whether the earth is flat and which prophet was speaking "as a man" when he said it was actually triangular.

If Dehlin and Kelly are spreading false doctrine, it will be proven false in time. And if they are right, 15 million excommunications won't change that fact.

-- King Arthur

Jesus taught excommunication in Matthew. Paul taught it in several epistles. The latter went as far as hoping that the "cutting off" included the penis of those teaching circumcision.

This is not a new issue, but come the Resurrection you can take it up with them.

[juliann]

Was hid duty to organise the RS in said area or was he CALLED and SUSTAINED as RS President. Two different things IMO

 

No it's not. The point is that men can step in at all. Women would never be able to organize a bishopric or stand in in any way at all. We really can't afford to side step the realities anymore. We can make judgements about the value of such restriction or better still, come up with reasons to support continuing it...but we can't credibly claim they don't exist.

[bluebell]

Hi Bluebell!

 

There have been a few mentions of this statement ("... if there is a God") that John made.

 

My own observation and experience is that some people are wired to simply "believe" and others are wired to question and doubt so that their faith is more like the fellow in Mark 9:24 who said, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief".

 

I'm a thinker, ponderer and doubter and I seem to have to turn over every stone.  And yet I believe.  My relationship with and love for God is so deep that I can't help but believe!

 

But I'm very comfortable with the language of doubt.  And there have been times when I've been counselling with people who either don't believe or who have doubts, that I've said ""... if God even exists!" because I've thought it could tap into their own openness and help them explore whether they can make a leap of faith, see God's goodness, and embrace God's existence. 

 

I'm not trying to second guess John here at all.  (Although I understand that he tries to help people who have doubts, and I tend to think he's a doubter himself.) 

 

I can appreciate the seeming oddity of John's words here, and the surprise engendered by this addition (  Only he knows why he added that - and almost as an afterthought.)  But expressions of doubts as to God's existence (even from believers!) don't alarm me.  And I think that God is more than able to understand where our doubts come from (He made us!) and to journey with us as we honestly acknowledge and confront our doubts and our belief.

 

I get what you are saying.

 

I'm just not sure i get what John is saying.

 

First, he stated that he believes the main tenets of the LDS church.  (One of the main tenets of the LDS church is that God the Father and Jesus Christ exist.)

 

Second, he stated that he doesn't know if God or Jesus exist.

 

Those two statements seem to be mutually exclusive.  You can believe one or the other, but it's not possible to claim both.  That's why i'm confused that he is claiming that he both does believe that God and Jesus exist, while at the same time saying he doesn't know if they exist.

 

Bluebell, as ever, I like your posts.  I'd love to live close and have face to face chats with you!

 

 

Right back at ya!

[Scott Lloyd]

Is Kelly advocating for that or teaching it as truth? I think there's a significant difference.

I'm a long time reader/listener of Waterman/Dehlin and I don't see anything they've done that would warrant excommunication.

I'd never head of Waterman until you brought him up. but a glance at his website indicates that he is accusing today's prophets and apostles of teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. In effect, he is accusing them of apostasy. In so doing, it seems to me, he is the one in apostasy and is actively promulgating his apostate ideas, an offense potentially warranting excommunication.

[ksfisher]

Yes because Relief Society positions are somehow comparable and equivalent in quantity, quality and responsibility  to  Bishops, Elders Quorum Presidents, Stake Presidents, High Council, Presiding Bishopric, Seventies, Apostles and Prophet.

 

Yes, because the main function of all of those callings is to lead those under their stewardship back to Christ.

 

"All Church leaders are called to help other people become "true followers of...Jesus Christ" (Moroni 7:48).  To do this, leaders first strive to be the Savior's faithful disciples, living each day so that they can return to live in God's prescense."  CHI2 3.1

 

What greater calling can one have?  The administrative functions are only temporary.

[Zakuska]

This is not a new issue, but come the Resurrection you can take it up with them.

 

Will those of us who have had the mark in the flesh be getting it back in a ressurected state? 

Edited June 12, 2014 by Zakuska

[CA Steve]

Ah. So the structure of God's Church is to be determined by nose-counting, is it?

I acknowledge that women are not ordained to the priesthood, and that they have some different responsibilities than men. But I reject that this state of affairs is man-made. I reject that this difference makes women less valuable than men in the eyes of God.

I was surprised to observe your contempt for the Relief Society. In my experience, the Relief Society president in a ward has huge influence in the ward overall, on par with or even more so than the High Priest Group Leader or the Elder's Quorum President.

Thanks,

-Smac

Feel free to continue to project your own contempt on other posters.

The irony of a all male court trying a woman in absentia for apostasy regarding women's issues will not be lost on most.

Edited June 12, 2014 by CA Steve

[Gray]

For your consideration

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/06/12/on-excommunication/

 

"If you wanted to somehow prove that women’s voices are not fully appreciated in the church, you could do nothing better than to have an all-male panel try a woman in absentia."

[ERayR]

Feel free to continue to project your own contempt on other posters.

The irony of a all male court trying a woman in absentia for apostasy regarding women's issues will not be lost on most.

 

You continue to misrepresent the problem.  It is not the issues that are being tried but the approach she takes to address them.

[Gray]

I get what you are saying.

 

I'm just not sure i get what John is saying.

 

First, he stated that he believes the main tenets of the LDS church.  (One of the main tenets of the LDS church is that God the Father and Jesus Christ exist.)

 

Second, he stated that he doesn't know if God or Jesus exist.

 

Those two statements seem to be mutually exclusive.  You can believe one or the other, but it's not possible to claim both.  That's why i'm confused that he is claiming that he both does believe that God and Jesus exist, while at the same time saying he doesn't know if they exist.

 

 

Right back at ya!

 

I'm often confused at some of the things he says. I don't think he's an effective communicator. He might have meant that he believes in charity and brotherly love, just as the church teaches.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, I wouldn't be as fatalistic as all that. Thomas Murphy is still nominally a member of the Church, but his departure seemed "inevitable" too. (I note, BTW, that he made a splash for a brief while, but he otherwise did affect the Church.)

Also, I think Kate Kelly has raised a fair point about the propriety of her bishop scheduling a disciplinary council after she had moved out of the ward (although, in what appears to be her predeliction, she raised the point in an abrasive and inappropriate way by publicly accusing her bishop of being "cowardly and unchristlike"). Frankly, I would not be surprised if her disciplinary council is postponed or cancelled altogether. In fact, I am expecting cancellation. The Church's membership records can be instantly transferred, and if her membership records are no longer in the DC ward, then I do not see how the processes for reporting a disciplinary council can proceed. The bishop in the DC ward may not be able to generate the necessary reports or properly follow the CHI's guidelines on discipline.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Reading the letter from the stake president, which Kelly made public, I get the impression that this is already an on-going proceeding, continuing the process in which Kelly has already been put on informal probation. Apparently, the convening of the disciplinary council is a consequence of her having (allegedly) failed to comport with the terms of the probation. Thus, it seems to me, the stake president is obliged to follow through with what was already underway.

 

But I have no experience in these matters, and I know that you probably do by virtue of past ecclesiastical experience.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd