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

[smac97]

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

Huh? I wasn't the one making derisive comments about the Relief Society. That was . . . well, you.

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

I think most observant Latter-day Saints find no irony in this at all. People outside of our faith may find fault with it, but they are making conclusions largely from a position of ignorance, so that's understandable.

Gender quotas just don't seem to have a place in the Restored Gospel. I know there are people who want to foment gender-based divisions and discord in the Church, and they may succeed to some extent. But we'll sort things out and carry on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

 

We don't just have to go by what happened in the NT though.  He also organized His church in 1830 and again, He excluded women from ordination.

 

Joseph Smith never recorded any revelation prohibiting women from ordination

 

And I don't think there is anyway to successfully argue that Christ succumbed to the traditions and culture of His time when He really wanted for women be ordained.  Her certainly didn't care about culture and tradition with any thing else so there is no precedent or evidence to support that idea.

 

Jesus partook in many of the traditions of his day.

 

And one more aside-is the culture of His area/time that much different than that of the OT, where you have argued that women were ordained?  If He could pull it off in the OT, why not the NT and the D&C?

 

There are 8 centuries difference between, for example, Isaiah and Jesus. 

 

 

JS did record revelation ordaining men.  Which means that Christ does give revelation in regards to who He wants ordained and did reveal to JS that men should be ordained.  So we have a pattern we can follow telling us how Christ handles this particular issue of ordination.

 

Therefore, if Christ wanted women ordained, either He did not tell JS about it (which makes no sense), or He told him, just like He did with the men, but JS just decided he wasn't going to do it (which means he has led the church astray and not restored it according to Christ's dictates).

 

The only other option is that Christ did not want women ordained at that time (for whatever reason and for whatever length of time to come).

[JLHPROF]

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."

 

I've never seen excommunication as having any real spiritual impact on someones salvation/exaltation.  All of a sudden just because of some institutional paperwork your baptism is reversed?  Your covenants made between you and God are invalid?  Your priesthood sealings in the temple are invalidated just by a note in a file?  What exactly "undoes" the eternal ordinances one has already received?

 

I have often wondered where God comes into excommunication - when the verdict is passed, does God all of a sudden release us from our covenants, put our sins back on us, and no longer accept a sealing done by authority in His name?  I suppose we could lose the Holy Ghost to some degree if we are in rebellion, but that would still be between us and God, not the result of a disciplinary council.  They can't remove the gift of the Holy Ghost by voting.

 

While it does prevent you from continuing to receive some blessings (especially if you are in sin/apostasy), the idea that being excommunicated undoes your relationship with God and the ordinances you've previously received just makes no sense.  Only you or God can break a covenant between you and God.  A bit of paperwork and a vote can't do it.

[Scott Lloyd]

The six discussions (albeit only two being released) is likely the catalyst.   She is encouraging women to have discussion groups, about the issues using a format that at least spoofs a church missionary format.   If she did all this after the SP had asked her to quit, I get how she ends up where she is.   But I don't know how she can attend a church disciplinary council if she is enroute to Kenya and no longer in any ward officially, having moved from elsewhere to stay temporarily with family (which I think is her story).

 

She can choose to postpone the trip and return to attend the council. Also, the bishop has given her the option to submit paperwork in lieu of in-person attendance.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

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."

The "in absentia" part is gratuitous, is it not? She's pretty much choosing to not participate. In the Trib interview today she claimed, IIRC, that she cannot attend because 1) she has moved to Utah (but we still have functioning airlines, so that doesn't wash), 2) she is caring for a sick relative (that's a good reason to not attend, but she could simply tell her bishop that and ask that he re-schedule the council), and 3) she doesn't have money (but she's previously used the OW group to raise money to pay for protesters to fly into Salt Lake to protest during General Conference, so I suspect she could rather easily raise money through similar means to fly out to Virginia).

As far as the "all-male panel try(ing) a woman" part, that's the way the Church has been set up for decades. It is not an aberration. And I fail to see the correlation between appreciating women and having them participate on disciplinary councils.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As far as the "all-male panel try(ing) a woman" part, that's the way the Church has been set up for decades. It is not an aberration. And I fail to see the correlation between appreciating women and having them participate on disciplinary councils.

Thanks,

-Smac

Somethings just don't seem to connect logically. There is no correlation between the 2. That is just Gray demonizing one group against another to try and make er force "progress".

Edited June 12, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Zakuska]

I my house growing up, the disciplinary council was my Mom. Period.  Since my dad was a journey man and was gone much of the time.

[Gray]

JS did record revelation ordaining men.  Which means that Christ does give revelation in regards to who He wants ordained and did reveal to JS that men should be ordained.  So we have a pattern we can follow telling us how Christ handles this particular issue of ordination.

 

JS didn't receive any revelation on priesthood that focused on gender. 

 

Therefore, if Christ wanted women ordained, either He did not tell JS about it (which makes no sense), or He told him, just like He did with the men, but JS just decided he wasn't going to do it (which means he has led the church astray and not restored it according to Christ's dictates).

 

This falls apart when you consider the blacks in the priesthood issue. Also, we have no revelation authorizing the priesthood for young boys (unless I'm missing something) 

 

The only other option is that Christ did not want women ordained at that time (for whatever reason and for whatever length of time to come).

 

There is nothing that indicates that Christ had anything against ordaining women. The first special witness to his resurrection was a woman

[ksfisher]

I've never seen excommunication as having any real spiritual impact on someones salvation/exaltation.  All of a sudden just because of some institutional paperwork your baptism is reversed?  Your covenants made between you and God are invalid?  Your priesthood sealings in the temple are invalidated just by a note in a file?  What exactly "undoes" the eternal ordinances one has already received?

 

I have often wondered where God comes into excommunication - when the verdict is passed, does God all of a sudden release us from our covenants, put our sins back on us, and no longer accept a sealing done by authority in His name?  I suppose we could lose the Holy Ghost to some degree if we are in rebellion, but that would still be between us and God, not the result of a disciplinary council.  They can't remove the gift of the Holy Ghost by voting.

 

While it does prevent you from continuing to receive some blessings (especially if you are in sin/apostasy), the idea that being excommunicated undoes your relationship with God and the ordinances you've previously received just makes no sense.  Only you or God can break a covenant between you and God.  A bit of paperwork and a vote can't do it.

 

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

Matthew 16:18-19

[Gray]

The "in absentia" part is gratuitous, is it not? She's pretty much choosing to not participate. In the Trib interview today she claimed, IIRC, that she cannot attend because 1) she has moved to Utah (but we still have functioning airlines, so that doesn't wash), 2) she is caring for a sick relative (that's a good reason to not attend, but she could simply tell her bishop that and ask that he re-schedule the council), and 3) she doesn't have money (but she's previously used the OW group to raise money to pay for protesters to fly into Salt Lake to protest during General Conference, so I suspect she could rather easily raise money through similar means to fly out to Virginia).

 

I don't think it would be appropriate to abuse OW donations for personal reasons. She just can't make it.

As far as the "all-male panel try(ing) a woman" part, that's the way the Church has been set up for decades.

 

Yes, something worth reconsidering. 

 

It is not an aberration. And I fail to see the correlation between appreciating women and having them participate on disciplinary councils.

 

You don't notice the thin air of high elevation when you're raised in Colorado.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

Matthew 16:18-19

 

Yes - but it takes an ordinance to "bind on earth and bind in heaven".  I don't believe that a panel vote and a note in a Church file constitute "loosing on earth and loosing in heaven".  For example, in the early days of the Church a sealing cancellation (or "release") involved an ordinance.  Blessings and Cursings both require pronouncement.

God can remove blessings for sin, but that doesn't happen automatically because a file gets stamped.

 

I don't believe that administrative action carries the same spiritual weight to cancel blessings as ordinances carry to bestow them.

Edited June 12, 2014 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

I've never seen excommunication as having any real spiritual impact on someones salvation/exaltation.

Absent a means of piercing the veil and taking a looksee at the Judgment Bar, I don't think you should expect see a "spiritual impact."

But if you mean an impact on a person while they are still on the earth, then your observations are limited. I have personally spoken with people who have been excommunicated who have been spiritually affected by excommunication.

All of a sudden just because of some institutional paperwork your baptism is reversed?

All of a sudden just because some dude dunks you under water you are "baptized?" Just because an old guy recites a few lines in the temple you are "sealed?"

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work on spiritual things. Baptism is symbolic. The sealing ordinance is symbolic. But they have real, actual, spiritual consequences. But just as the priesthood gives its holders power to "bind" (baptism, sealing, etc.), it also gives them power to loose (excommunication).

Excommunication is more than paperwork, just like baptism is more than taking a quick dip at the stake center.

Your covenants made between you and God are invalid?  Your priesthood sealings in the temple are invalidated just by a note in a file?  What exactly "undoes" the eternal ordinances one has already received?

Wow. Perhaps you should study these matters more. You apparently lack familiarity with even the most basic components of the topics under discussion. I don't say that as a dig. Honest. I just think you are not approaching this issue as well as you could if you were more conversant about the doctrines and concepts underlying it. Just food for thought.

I have often wondered where God comes into excommunication - when the verdict is passed, does God all of a sudden release us from our covenants, put our sins back on us, and no longer accept a sealing done by authority in His name?  I suppose we could lose the Holy Ghost to some degree if we are in rebellion, but that would still be between us and God, not the result of a disciplinary council.  They can't remove the gift of the Holy Ghost by voting.

I recommend you read and study D&C 128 and Matthew 16. A lot. Pay attention to the word "whatsoever."

While it does prevent you from continuing to receive some blessings (especially if you are in sin/apostasy), the idea that being excommunicated undoes your relationship with God and the ordinances you've previously received just makes no sense.  Only you or God can break a covenant between you and God.  A bit of paperwork and a vote can't do it.

Again, you appear to have not given this matter much study or consideration. I strongly recommend you do so, as I think earnest study and pondering will expand your horizons quite a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

JS didn't receive any revelation on priesthood that focused on gender.

 

Actually, every revelation he received on the priesthood focused on gender-the male gender.  

 

This falls apart when you consider the blacks in the priesthood issue. Also, we have no revelation authorizing the priesthood for young boys (unless I'm missing something)

I don't think it falls apart. Black men were still male.

And boys are still male.

 

There is nothing that indicates that Christ had anything against ordaining women. The first special witness to his resurrection was a woman

 

 

Just the fact that He never did it, or taught anyone else to do it.  

 

And i love the fact that the first witness to his resurrection was a woman.  It just has absolutely nothing to do with Christ's will on female ordination.

[smac97]

Somethings just don't seem to connect logically. There is no correlation between the 2. That is just Gray demonizing one group against another to try and make er force "progress".

I appreciate women, but they seldom participate in moving pianos or other heavy items when somebody moves in. But Gray has shown me the light! From here on out, helping with move-ins/move-outs should be calibrated precisely on gender lines! Three men and three women will move each piano! If women don't move pianos, we don't appreciate 'em enough.

-Smac

[bluebell]

The "in absentia" part is gratuitous, is it not? She's pretty much choosing to not participate. In the Trib interview today she claimed, IIRC, that she cannot attend because 1) she has moved to Utah (but we still have functioning airlines, so that doesn't wash), 2) she is caring for a sick relative (that's a good reason to not attend, but she could simply tell her bishop that and ask that he re-schedule the council), and 3) she doesn't have money (but she's previously used the OW group to raise money to pay for protesters to fly into Salt Lake to protest during General Conference, so I suspect she could rather easily raise money through similar means to fly out to Virginia).

 

 

I have to admit that #3 is probably my biggest issue with her claim that she is a victim being tried in absentia.  Having seen how OW is completely supporting her (which makes sense), i have no doubt they would pay for this in an instant if she wanted them to.  

 

I obviously don't know all the ins and outs, but knowing that much does make it harder (not impossible, but harder) to take her angst about not being able to be there very seriously.

[Calm]

If she is in Utah caring for a sick relative, it is likely her move was sooner than expected. The bishop had already discussed with her the issues and put her on probation. It is possible there was a date attached to it that corresponded with her original departure time that would have allowed the matter to be settled one way or the other prior to her departure.

I don't think we should assume the action was taken by the bishop in careless disregard for her scheduling, etc. it may have been an oversight and the bishop wasn't paying enough attention, it may have just been the unfortunate timing of her relative's illness or it may have been the timing of the discussions' release.

Trips to Kenya from SLC may go through various airports on the east coast. If she feels a need to be there in person, perhaps they can delay until she moves finally and she can halt her journey long enough to satisfy her need to represent herslf if she is uncomfortable not being able to speak in person. Not the best of situations, but a compromise perhaps.

I wouldn't want it hanging over me though, and I think I would be comfortable enough to carry on a question and answer online but perhaps her leaders might be concerned with the potential for lack of confidentiality in that case.

[JLHPROF]

Absent a means of piercing the veil and taking a looksee at the Judgment Bar, I don't think you should expect see a "spiritual impact."

But if you mean an impact on a person while they are still on the earth, then your observations are limited. I have personally spoken with people who have been excommunicated who have been spiritually affected by excommunication.

And I know many who have been excommunicated for various reasons who hold firm testimonies of the Church, believe in the Gospel and are quite at peace with their spiritual position.  They even continue to function as fully in the gospel as they can.  Don't assume your experiences are the only valid ones.  Others have observed more than you may have.

 

All of a sudden just because some dude dunks you under water you are "baptized?" Just because an old guy recites a few lines in the temple you are "sealed?"

 

I do not now nor have I ever believed that the physical actions of an ordinance are merely symbolic.  If it were so, sprinkling would be as valid as immersion, priesthood would not be necessary, and God wouldn't have to reveal eternal ordinances from heaven if they just represent spiritual things.  Ordinances were established before the foundation of the earth and there is real power in the action beyond representing the spiritual.

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work on spiritual things. Baptism is symbolic. The sealing ordinance is symbolic. But they have real, actual, spiritual consequences. But just as the priesthood gives its holders power to "bind" (baptism, sealing, etc.), it also gives them power to loose (excommunication).

Excommunication is more than paperwork, just like baptism is more than taking a quick dip at the stake center.

 

The sealing ordinance is not symbolic.  Before it is performed you are not sealed to your spouse.  After it is performed you are sealed to your spouse.  Baptism is not just symbolic - before it is performed you are not in a covenant with Christ, after it is performed you are in a covenant with Christ.  These do have spiritual consequences but those are actual things, not symbols.

And yes, the Priesthood has power to loose, just as it has power to bind.  How does it bind?  By ordinance or blessing?  How does it loose?  In the same manner and no other way.

Wow. Perhaps you should study these matters more. You apparently lack familiarity with even the most basic components of the topics under discussion. I don't say that as a dig. Honest. I just think you are not approaching this issue as well as you could if you were more conversant about the doctrines and concepts underlying it. Just food for thought.

 

Oh, you absolutely meant that as a dig.  I am very conversant in the doctrines of priesthood sealings and Church policy, whether I see it the same way you do or not.

I recommend you read and study D&C 128 and Matthew 16. A lot. Pay attention to the word "whatsoever."

 

Whatsover, yep, anything.  I am familiar with these scriptures.  And I still maintain that the same significant acts required to bind are required to loose.

Again, you appear to have not given this matter much study or consideration. I strongly recommend you do so, as I think earnest study and pondering will expand your horizons quite a bit.

 

Wow, condescending.  Perhaps with a bit more study you may come to recognize that the spiritual world is more than just symbolic and the elements of the ordinances are required and established by God for a reason.  Disciplinary councils have a spiritual function, but a removal of Church membership is not the same as a removal of blessings.

 

Edited June 12, 2014 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

I appreciate women, but they seldom participate in moving pianos or other heavy items when somebody moves in. But Gray has shown me the light! From here on out, helping with move-ins/move-outs should be calibrated precisely on gender lines! Three men and three women will move each piano! If women don't move pianos, we don't appreciate 'em enough.

-Smac

This is the kind of dismissive rhetoric that we just plain need to avoid when feelings are tender. Regardless of the intent, and I know yours to be honorable and good,  it comes across as disrespectful. 

 

Women are not asking to be "appreciated" by men. They are asking for more inclusion in their own church. Most of it is reasonable as are the women. We are also capable of managing heavy objects as single women can attest to. Having had a compassionate service calling, I would much rather be able to spend a few hours lifting things than what that calling entailed. Women are very involved in moves. We are generally the ones packing the house up and cleaning it and providing food for everyone else....and then helping load the boxes on a truck.  In other words, we are likely to be there before and after the men.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suspect it would feel like an assault to most of us if we were experiencing it.

There are many unpleasant experiences that might feel like an assault to those involved. Some things that come to mind: being laid off from work; being sued; being served with divorce papers; receiving a failing grade in school; being told that your car needs repairs costing several hundred dollars; learning that you must replace your home computers because Microsoft will no longer support or give security updates to the XP operating system. (That last one happened to me just recently.)

 

None of these would I put in the category of the infliction of violence.

[smac97]

SNIP

You took my remarks the wrong way. I apologize. I did not intend to dig or condescend. Please disregard my previous communications to you.

Thank you,

-Smac

[mnn727]

 

 but a removal of Church membership is not the same as a removal of blessings.

 

I know ~14 million people, and 1 God who disagree with you. The blessings that the Church bestows may also be removed by that Church.

[Calm]

As far as the "all-male panel try(ing) a woman" part, that's the way the Church has been set up for decades. It is not an aberration.

When I went to BYU for a degree in engineering, there were four women and 200 men in the program. None of my EE classes included other women. It was very strange and off putting. Didn't help that I was shy on top of that and hated being the focus of attention. I rarely talked in class in contrast to other nonEE courses like Calculus where I often contributed and helped others with homework.

I eventually switched to psychology mainly because I wasn't interested enough in EE to endure the daily agony. A year after I left BYU recognised the additional hardship of being few among many and started a mentoring programming for female EE students to help with the sense of isolation and stuff.

I am not saying an all male council is wrong, but it will have an added dynamic of difficulty for women in addition to those undergone by men. The severity will vary woman to woman, some will avoid it solely for that fact or simply sit there in silence. That would have been me if by chance I were in that situation 35 years ago.

Given that Kelly has demonstrated she is comfortable in public situations, in situations where she is the focus of attention such as interviews, it is obvious it would be foolish to assume she would respond as I might have (given that I have turned down opportunities to be interviewed because the very idea makes my stomach queasy even now), but I do think it is still a valid observation that being the only female present in the room with a number of men (don't know the specific amount) it will likely have at the very least a sense of awkwardness about it.

Edited June 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Story here. 

 

I'm not surprised by the church's actions. 

I just got in -- did the two members post their letters online?

[wenglund]

I suspect it depends on what we are being disciplined for. Being punished for one's sincere beliefs does feel like a slap in the face. The news of this felt like a slap in the face to me, and I'm not the subject of it. 

 

Thanks for sharing your experience Wade, and for your heartfelt expressions of humility. I am sure that in some cases discipline CAN be a positive experience. 

 

To me, it doesn't depend so much on the nature of the infraction brought before the council, but rather upon one's attitude and perspective going in.

 

For example, If one rightly looks at tribunals of love as not punishing members for their heartfelt beliefs, but rather as holding members accountable for their actions, as well as essentially unburden them from their covenant responsibilities which their actions demonstrate a lack of capacity to abide, then it would seem absurd to consider such as an assault--logically if anything may rightly be considered as an assault or a slap in the face, it would be holding people accountable and responsible for beliefs and actions they don't actually share.

 

So, from this perspective, it isn't a punishment or a slap in the face to relieve members of the burden for beliefs and actions they don't hold, but respect and mercy on their behalf.. 

 

Also, tribunals of love may not be so much intended as a means of punishment or a banishment, but as a way of formally acknowledging just how far the alleged offenders may have distanced themselves from the LDS faith. Instead of discouraging authenticity, the tribunals of love are a way of removing the temptation for members to pretend to have allegiances they don't really have, and to be something different from who they really are. It is a way of accepting and noting that certain members may be following their own chosen path, and it may serve as a way of removing barriers for them to finally and wholeheartedly get on their divergent way.

 

To me, it would be a slap in the face (or an insult to people's intelligence) to pretend the divergence of faith doesn't exist, thereby potentially locking people into mediocrity--neither hot nor cold in pursuit of the Church's path or their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 12, 2014 by wenglund

[Senator]

We are also capable of managing heavy objects as single women can attest to.

 

Just this morning while working out at the gym, a woman was able to front squat 200lbs.

 

I would love to have had her at our last move in!!