ERayR Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 So that is the part like stabbing Pres. Monson with a butcher knife? No that's where she demands he abdicate and institutionalize her false doctrine.
Calm Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I've only skimmed through on of her discussions and don't remember seeing anything where using ward resources were used, so I'm curious about this. We actual resources used, was there a sincere effort to advocate the use of resources, or was this more of a rhetorical device?It is in the introduction to the discussions, iirc.
Calm Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Do we excommunicate Harry Reid for being pro-choice? What about Barb Young for being pro-SSM? They are ... gasp ... disagreeing with the Brethren in public? Is that a danger to the rest of the flock?Is Harry Reid using his position as an LDS to publicly push the Brethren to teach pro choice as doctrine and urging others to do so as well? Is Barb Young? Edited June 13, 2014 by calmoriah 3
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 And if they don't stop? Stop what -- using ward resources to promote their Six Discussions? In that case, if Kelly was told "No" and yet, broke into the church or otherwise, used church resources in violation of express directions (and applicable law), then heck yeah, throw the book at her. However, if she just announced an intention to do so, then I think the proper first step is to say, "No! Bad girl! No!" I'm not aware of anyone, as of yet, holding even one discussion on church property. By way of example, when I was teaching my oldest son to drive, I took him to our meeting house parking lot on a Monday afternoon to practice parking. I guess this would constitute a technical trespass on Church property. If my bishop had a problem with it, I wouldn't presume that he would hold a church court. He could just call me and say, "No! Bad newb! No!" If I then insisted (or worse, brought another 100 student drivers with me the next Monday), then I deserve what I get.
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 No that's where she demands he abdicate and institutionalize her false doctrine. Still not stabbing. Since when did it become wrong to ASK for anything? And let's be clear. That's all OW has ever done. A "demand" comes along with a threat of other action. For example, if a lawyer sends a demand letter, it says, "Pay us money OR we will take you to court." Where is the "take you to court" part for OW? Their demand letter reads, "Give us the priesthood OR we will keep asking you to give us the priesthood." This isn't threatening so much as it is simply annoying. It's the equivalent of a child asking for candy, being denied and then asking again ten minutes later. That doesn't get anyone thrown out of MY house (although on second thought, maybe it should). It's hard to believe that this is all it takes to get thrown out of the Lord's Church.
bluebell Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 And where does this end? Do we excommunicate Harry Reid for being pro-choice? What about Barb Young for being pro-SSM? They are ... gasp ... disagreeing with the Brethren in public? Is that a danger to the rest of the flock? Nope, and you know why? Because no one is excommunicated for disagreeing with the Brethren, even in public. Let's say it one. more. time. KK and JD are not having disciplinary councils because they disagree.
why me Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Stop what -- using ward resources to promote their Six Discussions? In that case, if Kelly was told "No" and yet, broke into the church or otherwise, used church resources in violation of express directions (and applicable law), then heck yeah, throw the book at her. However, if she just announced an intention to do so, then I think the proper first step is to say, "No! Bad girl! No!" I'm not aware of anyone, as of yet, holding even one discussion on church property. I think that the church asked her not to demonstrate on temple square and what did she do? She protested on temple square. And if I remember correctly, you thought that it was okay for her to do so. There is no reason to believe that she would have listened to her Stake President. Kelly went too far this time. She has not listened to church leaders before and there is no reason to believe that she would have listened this time. Didn't you support her right to demonstrate on temple square
why me Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Still not stabbing. Since when did it become wrong to ASK for anything? And let's be clear. That's all OW has ever done.Not true. What about the six discussions? And it does seem that answer was no to their demands. Why didn't they listen? Because it was not in OWs interest to listen.
why me Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Agreed. They overstepped their bounds. And when my children do that, I simply say, "No!" Court of Love adjourned!But they also overstepped their bounds when they did not listen to the leaders about not protesting on temple square. When should a child be disciplined more?
ERayR Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 And where does this end? Do we excommunicate Harry Reid for being pro-choice? What about Barb Young for being pro-SSM? They are ... gasp ... disagreeing with the Brethren in public? Is that a danger to the rest of the flock? The fact that they don't proves your premise(that this is because they are simply disagreeing) to be inaccurate. 1
ERayR Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Stop what -- using ward resources to promote their Six Discussions? In that case, if Kelly was told "No" and yet, broke into the church or otherwise, used church resources in violation of express directions (and applicable law), then heck yeah, throw the book at her. However, if she just announced an intention to do so, then I think the proper first step is to say, "No! Bad girl! No!" I'm not aware of anyone, as of yet, holding even one discussion on church property. By way of example, when I was teaching my oldest son to drive, I took him to our meeting house parking lot on a Monday afternoon to practice parking. I guess this would constitute a technical trespass on Church property. If my bishop had a problem with it, I wouldn't presume that he would hold a church court. He could just call me and say, "No! Bad newb! No!" If I then insisted (or worse, brought another 100 student drivers with me the next Monday), then I deserve what I get. Stop what -- using ward resources to promote their Six Discussions? In that case, if Kelly was told "No" and yet, broke into the church or otherwise, used church resources in violation of express directions (and applicable law), then heck yeah, throw the book at her. However, if she just announced an intention to do so, then I think the proper first step is to say, "No! Bad girl! No!" I'm not aware of anyone, as of yet, holding even one discussion on church property. By way of example, when I was teaching my oldest son to drive, I took him to our meeting house parking lot on a Monday afternoon to practice parking. I guess this would constitute a technical trespass on Church property. If my bishop had a problem with it, I wouldn't presume that he would hold a church court. He could just call me and say, "No! Bad newb! No!" If I then insisted (or worse, brought another 100 student drivers with me the next Monday), then I deserve what I get. In your zeal you seem to be moving into the inane. 1
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Is Harry Reid using his position as an LDS to publicly push the Brethren to teach pro choice as doctrine and urging others to do so as well? Is Barb Young? I see your distinction and I agree it does make a difference -- whether one is trying to change Church doctrine and policies. And so I'm glad for Reid and particularly Barb Young, who is probably one of my five favorite saints. Yet, I keep getting hung up on "using his position as an LDS." We all acknowledge that Kelly and Dehlin have the freedom to advocate for any position they so choose. The only question is whether they can do so and still "use their positions as an LDS." Apparently, that is something that holds sway in our community, whether one has a "position" as a saint. This is something foreign to me because I've never been involved in such a tight-knit religious community where someone's membership gave them some appreciable level of credibility to speak about issues in the community. For example, in my view, some of the most biting criticisms about the Christian church were made by Gandhi. “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It is just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ." I've heard Protestant members quote Gandhi on several occasions to exhort the flock to better follow the Savior. Not once have I ever heard anyone say, "Why should we listen to Gandhi? He was Hindu from Pete's sake!" However, this seems to be precisely what the Church is trying to accomplish here. The hope is that members will say, "Kelly can't be right about ordination of women. She's not even a Mormon for Kate's sake!" "I shouldn't pay any attention to the anachronisms in the BofM. I heard about them on Dehlin's podcast and he's not even a Mormon." I don't know what's stranger to me -- that the Church thinks it will work or that it probably will.
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 But they also overstepped their bounds when they did not listen to the leaders about not protesting on temple square. When should a child be disciplined more? Then they should be charged with "trespass" not apostasy.
ERayR Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Still not stabbing. Since when did it become wrong to ASK for anything? And let's be clear. That's all OW has ever done. One last time. Do you really not understand it is not because of a different opinion, it is not for asking. She has gone far beyond that. She is preparing and disseminating non-doctrinal information she is asking her followers to further disseminate using church resources. When ask to keep her conference demonstration confined for the area reserved for that she instead ignores the request and pushes her way onto church property. 1
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 But is your mother a Mormon and telling them this is the true doctrine that faithful Mormon believe?This is not about shutting down people who disagree. This is about making clear what position people are talking from. If they want to represent themselves as representatives of the faithful LDS doctrine, they they need to teach that and not their pet hobbies...no matter what that is. If they feel it is more important to share their message, then that is fine, they just need to do it honestly as something that is outside of what is current LDS doctrine. Kelly is telling people that faithful Mormons believe in the ordination of women? Dehlin is telling people that faithful Mormons doubt the historicity of the BofM? I don't think that's what they're doing at all. They would be the first to acknowledge that their views are outside of the mainstream of the Church. I think they are saying that Mormons SHOULD believe X, Y and Z. The question is whether one should be able to hold the coveted crown of "Mormon" and believe differently than most Mormons.
why me Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Then they should be charged with "trespass" not apostasy.The problem is that it is not just one thing....but an accumulation of things. And much has went unnoticed by most on this board. We have no idea what Kelly has been saying in her ward, nor john. I am sure that their mouths were not quiet about what they believe. I don't think that it is easy being in their wards.
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 One last time. Do you really not understand it is not because of a different opinion, it is not for asking. She has gone far beyond that. She is preparing and disseminating non-doctrinal information she is asking her followers to further disseminate using church resources. When ask to keep her conference demonstration confined for the area reserved for that she instead ignores the request and pushes her way onto church property. If she was using Church resources to disseminate MLM information, would she be charged with apostasy? What about if she used those resources to disseminate doctrinal information but without authority from the church? In both cases, the Church would rightly move to stop her but she wouldn't be charged with "apostasy." So what's the difference? That the Church (currently) disagrees with what she is disseminating. It's about disagreeing.
ERayR Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 The question is whether one should be able to hold the coveted crown of "Mormon" and believe differently than most Mormons. Nope, It is should one be able to continue to publicly teach those different beliefs as doctrine after having been instructed not to. They can still believe what they want. They can still teach what they want. Just not under the guise of being a member.
why me Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) If she was using Church resources to disseminate MLM information, would she be charged with apostasy? What about if she used those resources to disseminate doctrinal information but without authority from the church? In both cases, the Church would rightly move to stop her but she wouldn't be charged with "apostasy." So what's the difference? That the Church (currently) disagrees with what she is disseminating. It's about disagreeing.Lets try this again: it is not about one thing but about a series of things that she has done and said. Likewise for john. Do you believe that if she did this and this was all she did, she would be facing excommunication? Kelly is one person but if we had a couple of thousand of Kellys in the church, how would the church proceed? How could the church be of one mind? Edited June 13, 2014 by why me
ERayR Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 If she was using Church resources to disseminate MLM information, would she be charged with apostasy? What about if she used those resources to disseminate doctrinal information but without authority from the church? In both cases, the Church would rightly move to stop her but she wouldn't be charged with "apostasy." So what's the difference? That the Church (currently) disagrees with what she is disseminating. It's about disagreeing. See above post.
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Nope, It is should one be able to continue to publicly teach those different beliefs as doctrine after having been instructed not to. They can still believe what they want. They can still teach what they want. Just not under the guise of being a member.Neither is teaching that their beliefs are the doctrine of the Church. They are teaching that their beliefs SHOULD be the doctrine of the Church.
Gray Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Deleted because someone beat me to it Edited June 13, 2014 by Gray
Popular Post juliann Posted June 13, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 13, 2014 And where does this end? Do we excommunicate Harry Reid for being pro-choice? What about Barb Young for being pro-SSM? They are ... gasp ... disagreeing with the Brethren in public? Is that a danger to the rest of the flock? As disheartening as I find the current situation for all involved, it really is time to apply common sense for all involved. The church does have a right and even duty to maintain it's boundaries...or since it is always accused of being nothing more than a corporation...protect it's brand. There has been a very transparent spin that this is just about "disagreement" and not about behavior. Even your own examples prove that disagreement is tolerated. But Harry Reid does not organize groups to invade temple grounds after being asked to stop. And Sis. Young is not out recommending anti-Mormons or attempting to build a following she can "counsel" about leaving the church. In short, there are valid reasons the church is doing this. That should be acknowledged in any discussion of this in order to be taken seriously. There are also valid reasons why this is a very serious thing that will be devastating for those involved and their followers. Whether this is an ultimately helpful choice is unknown, we are not privy to inside church thinking on this....but what is known is that the church can rightfully set it's own boundaries for good or for bad. 11
why me Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I think he didn't want to have to keep going through investigations with local leadership. His wife apparently didn't want the family put through it a fourth time. We have been on to john for quite some time. This is what Greg's article was all about. Having been around the internet john for years, I can safely say that he was not a friend of the lds church....from a humble beginning with his podcast that were somewhat good and faith promoting to something else was quite a change. And when he came back all were basically surprised on this board and we gave him the benefit of the doubt. It was rather soon that he went back to his old ways.
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) Lets try this again: it is not about one thing but about a series of things that she has done and said. Likewise for john. Do you believe that if she did this and this was all she did, she would be facing excommunication? Kelly is one person but if we had a couple of thousand of Kellys in the church, how would the church proceed? How could the church be of one mind?That is the key question -- should the church be of one mind? In my Baptist tradition, we believe that members should agree on ALL matters and, as a result, there are more than 200 denominations of Baptists, including a Left-hand Baptist contingent who could not stand to be associated with those heathens who receive the sacrament in their right hands.Our Church has been amazingly cohesive in this regard as we've done a good job of avoiding a "spirit of contention" (with a few exceptions ... Hehe). It also appears that the Church has been proactive in stamping out apostasy early. I'm not sure that will be possible going forward (OW is only about one year old). So the Church will have a choice -- splinter into dozens of "one-minded churches" or we'll have to learn to accept those who are "similarly minded." Edited June 13, 2014 by mormonnewb
Recommended Posts