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

[ksfisher]

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.

What I'm understanding from this is that you don't believe that the disciplinary council process, as taught to us by those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, represents the mind and will of God on the matter. Is that correct?

[Scott Lloyd]

If I'm reading this right, the Church is the metaphorical "rattlesnake," "bottle of nitroglycerine," and hungry "lion."  Given the rising tide of complaints that the Church is acting with "violence" in this matter, I don't think these metaphorical comparisons serve your argument very well.

If you had been present when Christ gave the parable of the importunate widow and the unjust judge to illustrate that we "ought to pray and not faint," would you tell the Master that the parable didn't "serve [His] argument very well" because he seemed to be comparing God to an unjust judge?

 

No comparison or analogy applies with perfect precision in every respect, and a reasonable listener will recognize that fact while at the same time taking the intended point.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

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

 

Who said their is gender equality in the Church?

 

Why would we, as a church, seek for something as inane and counter-intuitive as gender equality?

 

You evidently have the Church confused with the religion of pop culture. The gospel isn't about equality, but about coming to Christ and becoming like him.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Thinking]

Perhaps.  Perhaps the rhetorical linkage which I'm not the only one to notice was more charged than you're presently stating now that you've been called on it.

 

If the linkage is there and I point it out, people can infer what they want.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

Nope.  PRIESTHOOD can remove blessings bestowed by PRIESTHOOD.  The Church doesn't "bestow blessings", the Priesthood does and the Church records them.  And simply recording that a person is no longer a member doesn't "remove them".  But yes, priesthood authority can curse or remove blessings if such action is taken. 

 

We have to get out of the mindset that the Church and the Priesthood are interchangeable terms.  The Church functions under the priesthood authority, not the other way round.  God restored priesthood authority to earth in 1829,1836 and 1842/3 (that we know of).  The Church was established by the state of New York on April 6, 1830.  Different events.

[wenglund]

Who said their is gender equality in the Church?

 

Why would we, as a church, seek for something as inane and counter-intuitive as gender equality?

 

You evidently have the Church confused with the religion of pop culture. The gospel isn't about equality, but about coming to Christ and becoming like him.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Speaking of which, during the final judgement we are told that the Father will sit in judgement, and the Son will advocate for the children. No mention is made of any women siting in judgement at this seminal event--not that it should matter to us.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ttribe]

If you had been present when Christ gave the parable of the importunate widow and the unjust judge to demonstrate that we "ought to pray and not feint," would you tell the Master that the parable didn't serve [His] argument very well" because he seemed to be comparing God to an unjust judge?

 

No comparison or analogy applies with perfect precision in every respect, and a reasonable listener will recognize that fact while at the same time taking the intended point.

 

As to the first comment - I perceive there is an authority difference between Christ and Bro. Christensen.

 

As to the second comment - My apologies for bothering you Scott, but we are talking about people and their eternal well being, here, are we not?  Is a call for a little more sensitivity in our choice of language really that much of a problem?  Moreover, I reject your "reasonable listener" comment as well.  I doubt there is a universally accepted definition of such a thing and find your use of the term nearly as problematic in its boundary-establishing implications.

[JLHPROF]

What I'm understanding from this is that you don't believe that the disciplinary council process, as taught to us by those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, represents the mind and will of God on the matter. Is that correct?

 

No.  I believe the disciplinary process to be revealed by revelation and to have absolute spiritual consequences.  But what I don't believe is that the actions of a disciplinary council can remove spiritual blessings already bestowed by priesthood authority. 

 

I believe if we are ordained to the priesthood correctly only our own sins can remove that ordination whether the Church records it or not.  I believe that if we are sealed to our spouse by priesthood authority only our own sins or breaking of the covenant can invalidate that sealing whether the Church records it or not.

 

The disciplinary council's job is to evaluate whether a sin or covenant breaking has occurred and to judge as best it can and enter the verdict upon the records.  Then the PRIESTHOOD authority can remove the blessing/loose on earth if it chooses to, but the Church itself does not accomplish this just by a vote and record. 

 

There have been several high profile "excommunicants" who had their blessings restored posthumously with no indication of their spiritual condition.  Makes one question whether those blessings were ever removed in anything other than Church records.

[smac97]

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.

I thought a little piano-related levity would be okay. I guess not. In any event, I wasn't intending to be dismissive of anyone.

 

Women are not asking to be "appreciated" by men.

If you go back to the post in question (which included a quote from the BCC blog), you will find that the comment which led to my lame attempt at piano-related humor was: "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 was responding to that comment, that's all.

 

They are asking for more inclusion in their own church. Most of it is reasonable as are the women.

And you think that I oppose reasonable measures to be more inclusive of women in the Church? If so, what gave you this impression?

 

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

Wait, are we going to talk about pianos or not? I'm asking this sincerely. I actually had an underlying point to make, but you didn't like the attempt at humor, so I was going to drop the whole thing.

 

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.

Let me be clear: I was not advocating that men are superior to women, or more apt to provide service, or anything else remotely considering that. I frankly detest the hostile comparisons between men and women which threads such as this bring up. I have no interest in arguing over which gender works harder, or which one is "likely to be there" first and leave last. I have no interest in comparing scars about which calling is more challenging than the other. Such arguments have no utility. In fact, I think we are warned against such contentions in 1 Corinthians 12:

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ahead to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be amore feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

I think it is profoundly unhealthy to see church members resenting their callings, or the callings of others, in effect becoming the foot which says "Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body."

 

I also think it is profoundly unhealthy to turn service in the Church into a gender-based grudge match.  I love and respect the women of the Church.  I also love and respect the men of the Church.  We are all members of the body of Christ, and I believe that God has set us "every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

 

I agree that there are ways the Church can improve.  But we don't make improvements by resenting each other, or by demeaning each other, by claiming one gender is better than the other, or that one works harder than the other, or that the we are all feet or all eyeballs (see above).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 13, 2014 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

As to the first comment - I perceive there is an authority difference between Christ and Bro. Christensen.

 

Beside the point. Consistency would require that you reject Christ's analogy on similar grounds to your rejection of Kevin's -- that not every element of the comparison is a good fit.

 

 

As to the second comment - My apologies for bothering you Scott, ...

 

Where in the world did that come from?

 

... but we are talking about people and their eternal well being, here, are we not? 

 

Yes. And perhaps vivid phrasing is in order when we are discussing behavior that potentially could put that well-being in jeopardy.

 

Is a call for a little more sensitivity in our choice of language really that much of a problem?

 

See above.

 

 

Moreover, I reject your "reasonable listener" comment as well.  I doubt there is a universally accepted definition of such a thing and find your use of the term nearly as problematic in its boundary-establishing implications.

 

I think relatively few things in this world have a "universally accepted definition." But I believe the point I made passes the common sense test.

[ksfisher]

No.  I believe the disciplinary process to be revealed by revelation and to have absolute spiritual consequences.  But what I don't believe is that the actions of a disciplinary council can remove spiritual blessings already bestowed by priesthood authority. 

 

I believe if we are ordained to the priesthood correctly only our own sins can remove that ordination whether the Church records it or not.  I believe that if we are sealed to our spouse by priesthood authority only our own sins or breaking of the covenant can invalidate that sealing whether the Church records it or not.

 

The disciplinary council's job is to evaluate whether a sin or covenant breaking has occurred and to judge as best it can and enter the verdict upon the records.  Then the PRIESTHOOD authority can remove the blessing/loose on earth if it chooses to, but the Church itself does not accomplish this just by a vote and record. 

 

There have been several high profile "excommunicants" who had their blessings restored posthumously with no indication of their spiritual condition.  Makes one question whether those blessings were ever removed in anything other than Church records.

Just one point of clarification here there is no vote in a disciplinary council. In a stake setting after hearing the evidence the members of the council will discuss the matter and make recommendations. The stake presidency will then excuse themselves and discuss the matter further and pray. When the stake presidency returns to the council they will announce their decision and ask the council to sustain it. So it's sustaining a decision made by one who holds priesthood keys (the stake president), and not voting, that the council is asked to do.

[sethpayne]

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.

 

Does the Church bestow blessings or is it God?

 

I've always been under the impression that it was God.

[rpn]

 

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.

But these aren't the facts.   Sister Kelly says that prior to getting the bishop's letter announcing the DC, the bishop had never spoken with  her, even in response to regular correspondence she'd sent him about what she was doing with OW.   It was her SP (how does he have any authority to do so, but his letter says he did it) who put her on informal probation, apparently in a one time conversation/meeting that was sandwiched among her packing, with no real notice. 

 

I'm thinking that putting the accounts together, the SP found out she was leaving imminently, and decided to have the conversation, and assign the probation before she left.   And the bishop didn't give her the notice until a couple of weeks later [deleted because not backed up by what Sis. Kelly actually said, once heard directly].

 

ETA:  And having been the subject of a DC personally, I can tell you that having public experience in no way makes it bearable to participate in one.

 

And since God runs the church, there are only a couple of options --- either He agrees with decision (inspired it or accepts it); or He is going to hold someone accountable for doing something in God's name that was not what God inspired him to do, in His own time, and  the subject will be able to handle it some how, some way,.  Along with those there could be something someone in the process needs to learn that cannot be learned oherwise, so He permits it to that end. 

Edited June 13, 2014 by rpn

[Scott Lloyd]

If the linkage is there and I point it out, people can infer what they want.

There is no demonstrable linkage. It's merely a matter of one thing happening prior to another. To state or imply otherwise is the classic post hoc fallacy.

[smac97]

Does the Church bestow blessings or is it God?

 

I've always been under the impression that it was God.

Does the hose provide water to the garden? Or is it the spigot? Or is it that both of them are involved in the process of getting water to the garden, and to suggest otherwise is to create a false dichotomy?

I know it is a popular thing to try to jam a rhetorical wedge between God and His Church, but I don't think that is what He wants us to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 12, 2014 by smac97

[wenglund]

Does the Church bestow blessings or is it God?

 

I've always been under the impression that it was God.

 

False dichotomy. Often, blessings are bestowed by God through the auspices of his Church.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paloma]

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 missed seeing this earlier.  My viewing of this thread has been very spotty, I'm afraid.

 

Smac, I think I can understand your point of view here, as well as my former indication of empathy for Kate Kelly.

 

Having been in church leadership and having been part of administering church discipline, I can see this from that position as well.

[JLHPROF]

False dichotomy. Often, blessings are bestowed by God through the auspices of his Church.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Disagree if you mean eternal blessings such as ordinances.

It would be better to say:  Often, blessings are bestowed by God through the auspices of his Priesthood, not the Church.

 

Unless you are talking about charitable or social blessings - I suppose the Church does bestow those.

Edited June 12, 2014 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

Disagree if you mean eternal blessings such as ordinances.

It would be better to say:  Often, blessings are bestowed by God through the auspices of his Priesthood, not the Church.

Isn't that like saying my privileges as an attorney come from the Utah State Bar, but not from the State of Utah (in other words, you can't put it that way)?

What am I missing? What is the significance of differentiating between the Priesthood and the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

Beside the point. Consistency would require that you reject Christ's analogy on similar grounds to your rejection of Kevin's -- that not every element of the comparison is a good fit.

 

Nonsense!  You don't think words directly from God, Himself, would trump adherence to some ephemeral "law" of consistency? 

 

Where in the world did that come from?

 

From fatigue, I suppose.

 

Yes. And perhaps vivid phrasing is in order when we are discussing behavior that potentially could put that well-being in jeopardy.

 

Now THAT is beside the point because I'm pointing out that Bro. Christensen's metaphors comparing the Church to dangerous animals/objects serves to undermine his argument, not help it.  IOW, it's self-defeating in that it inadvertently plays into the hands of those who seek to portray the Church as a dangerous object.  Look again at how it was written and what I was criticizing.  Are the actions of the individual the "rattlesnake" or are the actions of the individual the "poking" of the "rattlesnake."  See the difference?

 

I think relatively few things in this world have a "universally accepted definition." But I believe the point I made passes the common sense test.

You're stating your subjective assessment as if I should accept it as fact. I don't. That's all I'm trying to tell you.

[wenglund]

Disagree if you mean eternal blessings such as ordinances.

It would be better to say:  Often, blessings are bestowed by God through the auspices of his Priesthood, not the Church.

 

Unless you are talking about charitable or social blessings - I suppose the Church does bestow those.

 

I am not limiting blessing to those of an eternal nature or those bestowed through the priesthood. I have personally been blessed, in both eternal and non-eternal ways (my soul has been significantly changed for the better) by the charitable and instructional and exemplary acts of women as well as men in my wards, acting under the auspices of the church.

 

I think what I had to say works just fine for my purposes, and was preferred by me to the limited sense you presume is better. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 12, 2014 by wenglund

[Calm]

But these aren't the facts.   Sister Kelly says that prior to getting the bishop's letter announcing the DC, the bishop had never spoken with  her, even in response to regular correspondence she'd sent him about what she was doing with OW.   It was her SP (how does he have any authority to do so, but his letter says he did it) who put her on informal probation, apparently in a one time conversation/meeting that was sandwiched among her packing, with no real notice. 

You are right, I wasn't putting the pieces together well.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Nonsense!  You don't think words directly from God, Himself, would trump adherence to some ephemeral "law" of consistency? 

 

 

 

I'm just looking for some consistency in your own logic whereby you criticize Kevin Christensen's analogy on grounds that could reasonably be applied to imagery put forth by the Master Teacher Himself, an application you appear unwilling to make. So far, I've not seen such logical consistency.

 

 

Now THAT is beside the point because I'm pointing out that Bro. Christensen's metaphors comparing the Church to dangerous animals/objects serves to undermine his argument, not help it. 

 

If it undermines his argument, why doesn't it undermine the Savior's argument to use imagery that, according to your own logic, would compare God to an unjust judge?

 

IOW, it's self-defeating in that it inadvertently plays into the hands of those who seek to portray the Church as a dangerous object. 

 

 

 

Then why wouldn't it be self-defeating for the Savior to use an analogy that applies in only a limited respect to the point that He was making?

 

 

Look again at how it was written and what I was criticizing.  Are the actions of the individual the "rattlesnake" or are the actions of the individual the "poking" of the "rattlesnake."  See the difference?

 

I understand what Kevin Christensen was saying -- perhaps better than you. You don't like it that Kevin used an analogy in which a rattlesnake was present, because, in your mind, he seemed to be comparing the Church to a rattlesnake. I submit that Kevin was doing no such thing -- any more than Christ was comparing God to an unjust judge. Rather Kevin was dramatizing the futility and foolishness of persisting in behavior that can only lead inexorably to seriously unpleasant consequences. Just as Christ was dramatizing the wisdom of persisting in prayer to a beneficent Heavenly Father who is apt to be at least as accessible as the unjust judge in the parable.

 

You're stating your subjective assessment as if I should accept it as fact. I don't. That's all I'm trying to tell you.

 

That, of course, is up to you. But I think I've made my case.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

I'm just looking for some consistency in your own logic whereby you criticize Kevin Christensen's analogy on grounds that could reasonably be applied to imagery put forth by the Master Teacher Himself, an application you appear unwilling to make. So far, I've not seen such consistency.

 

 

If it undermines his argument, why doesn't it undermine the Savior's argument to use imagery that, according to your own logic, would compare God to an unjust judge?

 

 

Then why wouldn't it be self-defeating for the Savior to use an analogy that applies in only a limited respect to the point that He was making?

 

 

I understand what Keven Christensen was saying -- perhaps better than you. You don't like it that Kevin used an analogy in which a rattlesnake was present, because, in your mind, he seemed to be comparing the Church to a rattlesnake. I submit that Kevin was doing no such thing -- any more than Christ was comparing God to an unjust judge. Rather Kevin was dramatizing the futility and foolishness of persisting in behavior that can only lead inexorably to seriously unpleasant consequences. Just as Christ was dramatizing the wisdom of persisting in prayer to a beneficent Heavenly Father who is apt to be at least as accessible as the unjust judge in the parable.

 

That, of course, is up to you. But I think I've made my case.

Whatever you say, Scott. My once a year reminder of how tired I was of the invective thrown around by all sides to these debates has cured me of the desire to participate once again.

[Scott Lloyd]

Whatever you say, Scott. My once a year reminder of how tired I was of the invective thrown around by all sides to these debates has cured me of the desire to participate once again.

I don't see that I have inveighed here in this brief exchange, though I have disagreed with you.