why me Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 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.What is sad for OW is that they could not put on the shelf their radical feminism. If only there would have chosen a different path like other mormon feminists have all would have been well. But it was their radical feminism that sunk them. It is not good to be so radical in being critical of males, especially the church leaders. The enemy for OW were men. Not good when we are all sisters and brothers.
juliann Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 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? Yes. And there are a thousand and many more like minded people in the church. But there aren't thousands summoned to a DC so what they think or say isn't the problem...it is what they are doing. So yes...more proof mere disagreement and even stating opinions is not the issue here. 2
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 What is sad for OW is that they could not put on the shelf their radical feminism. If only there would have chosen a different path like other mormon feminists have all would have been well. But it was their radical feminism that sunk them. It is not good to be so radical in being critical of males, especially the church leaders. The enemy for OW were men. Not good when we are all sisters and brothers.The enemy are men? Are you sure? I don't think they consider Dehlin an "enemy." Nor do I think they see the Brethren as the enemy. Why would they want priesthood in the enemy's church?
why me Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 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."The splintering would occur if dissent is allowed. It will not occur if the church reacts to apostacy quickly. OW lost much support among moderate lds women. Their message was radical and challenging to the church structure. The church is open to all thoughts. But it does frown on actions that may put the church at jeopardy.
why me Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Yes. And there are a thousand and many more like minded people in the church. But there aren't thousands summoned to a DC so what they think or say isn't the problem...it is what they are doing. So yes...more proof mere disagreement and even stating opinions is not the issue here.This is true. However, if the opinions go against doctrine and if these opinions are getting traction in the church, then opinions do matter as does action. Both can go hand in hand. Like I said earlier we have no idea what she has been saying in her ward meetings and what she has been organizing and how much influence she was having. I don't think that it was easy for her bishop or SP.
carbon dioxide Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Reducing this issue to its basic componet. We have a small group of women who for one reason or another believe they are entitled to the Melchezedek Priesthood and God owes it to them to have them ordained. Apparently the Atonement of Christ is not sufficient enough. The Priesthood is about them. Forget "thy will be done" Lord. We don't care if it is the will of the Father or the son. It is our will be done. We want the Priesthood and give it to us NOW!!!! We deserve it." It is almost an arguement that I would expect Satan to make. 2
Popular Post juliann Posted June 13, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) 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."Good points...except I doubt there will be any splintering into other churches. I have always maintained that the battle is over the community not the doctrine. Without the community there is nothing of much value when you are not accepting beliefs anyway. When I see how very painful it is to have to leave the church from those who do...the biggest hurdle is ultimately leaving the social ties. Many stay despite not believing just because of that. It is the community that makes the church the powerhouse it is, not the leaders that are maligned. That is why I have considered OW to be so self-destructive, they have done nothing to bring along that community and a whole lot to alienate them. The moderate feminists are doing just fine...which again proves that making this about disagreement is total spin which avoids any meaningful dialogue. Edited June 13, 2014 by juliann 5
juliann Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Reducing this issue to its basic componet. We have a small group of women who for one reason or another believe they are entitled to the Melchezedek Priesthood and God owes it to them to have them ordained. Apparently the Atonement of Christ is not sufficient enough. The Priesthood is about them. Forget "thy will be done" Lord. We don't care if it is the will of the Father or the son. It is our will be done. We want the Priesthood and give it to us NOW!!!! We deserve it." It is almost an arguement that I would expect Satan to make.Satan would also want people driving women out of the church with unkind and demeaning comments. OW is a small group...but the number of women who are not happy with how they are treated in the church is a much larger one and growing. 1
JAHS Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 The fall-out continues because of Ordain Women's activities: "Thanks to Kate Kelly’s bishop, I have my daughter back"http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58060390-82/church-daughter-bishop-kelly.html.csp
eddie 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?Not that it matters a ton, but Harry Reid is not really all that pro-choice. When a vote came up 10 years ago for each Senator to endorse Roe v Wade as a part of a larger partial birth abortion ban, he declined to do so.http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00048Certainly that isn't the only action in his history that defines his views, but Rick Santorum once declared he and Mitt Romney score about the same from various interest groups on the issue.I suspect there is merit to what Santorum said. 1
Popular Post carbon dioxide Posted June 13, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 13, 2014 I love this statement in this Op-Ed article at the Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58060390-82/church-daughter-bishop-kelly.html.csphttp://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58060390-82/church-daughter-bishop-kelly.html.csp "But, during the past year, the church’s persecution of Ordain Women has turned my disturbingly straight arrow into a right proper agitator." So if I go and poke someone in the eye and they respond in strong way, they are persecuting me? It is not like the "Ordain Women" group was just minding their own business and the LDS Church found out about them and starting attacking them. This group went out of their way to get noticed by the Church. They got what they attention they wanted and can't complain about the reaction because they knew it was coming. 6
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 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.Not disputing the Church's RIGHT to set boundaries. It has the right to restrict its membership to left-handed albino dwarfs if it so chooses. I question whether the Church is doing the right thing, not its RIGHT to do it.As for this not being about disagreement alone, yes you are all right. It's more than about disagreement. It's dissent mixed with action. Of course, you do realize that the Church "allowing" members to believe as they wish so long as they don't take any action to turn their beliefs into reality is not much of a freedom. This is demonstrated by what the 1st Amendment protects. It doesn't just protect the freedom of thought but the freedom of SPEECH (the ACT of trying to persuade others to your side). It protects the freedom to assemble to redress grievances (the ACT of getting together and protesting with others). OW's "crimes" here are all acts that fall within constitutional protection.NOW, I KNOW THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT BOUND BY THESE LIMITS. It has every right to restricts its members from any of these freedoms. The Church can even attempt to restrict our thoughts (not very successfully, of course). Yet, the question remains SHOULD the Church limit its members to only "impotent dissent"? In other words, SHOULD the Church's policy be that a member is free to think WHATEVER but no member shall take ANY action based on that thought, unless the thought is in line with (current) Church doctrine?I have serious doubts whether such a policy is workable in the 21st century.
toon Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Satan would also want people driving women out of the church with unkind and demeaning comments. OW is a small group...but the number of women who are not happy with how they are treated in the church is a much larger one and growing. I wonder to what extent actions against this smaller group will be perceived as against the larger. It would be helpful if meaningful steps were taken to reach out those those in this larger group. I recognize that some steps have been taken, but I have a hard time so far as seeing them as meaningful and significant. But absent that, there's the risk that this will be perceived as an attack against even those that hold legitimate concerns.
carbon dioxide Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Satan would also want people driving women out of the church with unkind and demeaning comments. OW is a small group...but the number of women who are not happy with how they are treated in the church is a much larger one and growing.How should the Church treat a group regardless of the issue if they are demanding changes to the Church are are pretty significant in scope. It is one thing to ask questions. Its another thing to start a crusade that really crosses the line into sedition. At some point the Church has got to end this. Sort of like if you have in infection. You can ignore it and hope it goes away or address it and move on. If one does not address the infection, it can turn into a very serious problem. I get no sense from Ordain Women that they will let this issue go. It think unless the Church give into their demands they will just push and push.
mormonnewb Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I love this statement in this Op-Ed article at the Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58060390-82/church-daughter-bishop-kelly.html.csphttp://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58060390-82/church-daughter-bishop-kelly.html.csp "But, during the past year, the church’s persecution of Ordain Women has turned my disturbingly straight arrow into a right proper agitator." So if I go and poke someone in the eye and they respond in strong way, they are persecuting me? It is not like the "Ordain Women" group was just minding their own business and the LDS Church found out about them and starting attacking them. This group went out of their way to get noticed by the Church. They got what they attention they wanted and can't complain about the reaction because they knew it was coming.If my wife pokes me in the eye (and she has), I do not poke her back in the eye. And yes, she started it. But since I've been endowed with more physical strength, I don't respond in kind. So should priesthood holders (who have been endowed with the power of God) respond in kind to being "poked in the eye" by our sisters? Whatever happened to "To whom much is given, much is required?"If one truly believes that HF has reserved priesthood power for men, then it would seem that men are duty bound to NOT respond in kind to attack. Even if "she started it."
Gray Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 (edited) 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. Apparently three separate investigations exonerated him. Apparently lengthy investigations were starting to tax the well being of him and his family. I can't blame him for wanting to pull back from that. Edited June 13, 2014 by Gray
cinepro Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Wow. I just went on Facebook and the "Martyr Meter" is pegged off the charts on Dehlin's page. I feel for the guy and wouldn't want to minimize the issue of excommunication, but he's being showered with gifts and condolences. People are sending him cupcakes and ice cream. Oddly (or ironically?), it appears the "PostMormon" people sent him some treats. 1
carbon dioxide Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Not disputing the Church's RIGHT to set boundaries. It has the right to restrict its membership to left-handed albino dwarfs if it so chooses. I question whether the Church is doing the right thing, not its RIGHT to do it.As for this not being about disagreement alone, yes you are all right. It's more than about disagreement. It's dissent mixed with action. Of course, you do realize that the Church "allowing" members to believe as they wish so long as they don't take any action to turn their beliefs into reality is not much of a freedom. This is demonstrated by what the 1st Amendment protects. It doesn't just protect the freedom of thought but the freedom of SPEECH (the ACT of trying to persuade others to your side). It protects the freedom to assemble to redress grievances (the ACT of getting together and protesting with others). OW's "crimes" here are all acts that fall within constitutional protection.NOW, I KNOW THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT BOUND BY THESE LIMITS. It has every right to restricts its members from any of these freedoms. The Church can even attempt to restrict our thoughts (not very successfully, of course). Yet, the question remains SHOULD the Church limit its members to only "impotent dissent"? In other words, SHOULD the Church's policy be that a member is free to think WHATEVER but no member shall take ANY action based on that thought, unless the thought is in line with (current) Church doctrine?I have serious doubts whether such a policy is workable in the 21st century. The Church allows people to think want they want. For it to be remotely a viable and credible Church, it can't just let organizations start and demand change and give into that change. What kind of God would the LDS claim to serve if this GOD has no backbone and gives into demands that people want. If the Church turns into an organization that changes its view simply the maximize the number of people that will join it, it has become a Church that probably is not worth being a member of. Perhaps allowing such sedition in the First Century church helped bring the First Century church into complete apostasy. Sometimes one might have to cut off a bad arm or leg and experience some loss to save the life of the person or in this case the Church.
carbon dioxide Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Not disputing the Church's RIGHT to set boundaries. It has the right to restrict its membership to left-handed albino dwarfs if it so chooses. I question whether the Church is doing the right thing, not its RIGHT to do it.As for this not being about disagreement alone, yes you are all right. It's more than about disagreement. It's dissent mixed with action. Of course, you do realize that the Church "allowing" members to believe as they wish so long as they don't take any action to turn their beliefs into reality is not much of a freedom. This is demonstrated by what the 1st Amendment protects. It doesn't just protect the freedom of thought but the freedom of SPEECH (the ACT of trying to persuade others to your side). It protects the freedom to assemble to redress grievances (the ACT of getting together and protesting with others). OW's "crimes" here are all acts that fall within constitutional protection.NOW, I KNOW THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT BOUND BY THESE LIMITS. It has every right to restricts its members from any of these freedoms. The Church can even attempt to restrict our thoughts (not very successfully, of course). Yet, the question remains SHOULD the Church limit its members to only "impotent dissent"? In other words, SHOULD the Church's policy be that a member is free to think WHATEVER but no member shall take ANY action based on that thought, unless the thought is in line with (current) Church doctrine?I have serious doubts whether such a policy is workable in the 21st century. Let me repost that as that came out wrong The Church allows people to think want they want. For it to be remotely a viable and credible Church, it can't just let organizations start and demand change and give into that change. What kind of God would the LDS claim to serve if this GOD has no backbone and gives into demands that people want. If the Church turns into an organization that changes its view simply the maximize the number of people that will join it, it has become a Church that probably is not worth being a member of. Perhaps allowing such sedition in the First Century church helped bring the First Century church into complete apostasy. Sometimes one might have to cut off a bad arm or leg and experience some loss to save the life of the person or in this case the Church. 1
Mystery Meat Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Not disputing the Church's RIGHT to set boundaries. It has the right to restrict its membership to left-handed albino dwarfs if it so chooses. I question whether the Church is doing the right thing, not its RIGHT to do it.As for this not being about disagreement alone, yes you are all right. It's more than about disagreement. It's dissent mixed with action. Of course, you do realize that the Church "allowing" members to believe as they wish so long as they don't take any action to turn their beliefs into reality is not much of a freedom. This is demonstrated by what the 1st Amendment protects. It doesn't just protect the freedom of thought but the freedom of SPEECH (the ACT of trying to persuade others to your side). It protects the freedom to assemble to redress grievances (the ACT of getting together and protesting with others). OW's "crimes" here are all acts that fall within constitutional protection.NOW, I KNOW THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT BOUND BY THESE LIMITS. It has every right to restricts its members from any of these freedoms. The Church can even attempt to restrict our thoughts (not very successfully, of course). Yet, the question remains SHOULD the Church limit its members to only "impotent dissent"? In other words, SHOULD the Church's policy be that a member is free to think WHATEVER but no member shall take ANY action based on that thought, unless the thought is in line with (current) Church doctrine?I have serious doubts whether such a policy is workable in the 21st century. That question is answered very simply. Do we believe that the Church is led by prophets, seers, and revelators who act in the same ways prophets of old did? If the answer is no, then I am out of here. If the answer is yes, then the answer to your question is yes as well. People hate the ark steadier comparison, but the more and more I read forums like this the more convinced I am that it was put in the scriptures for our day. For this very moment. It is not our job to steady the church (or the ark). Also it is not our church as I have heard people say it is on this board. It is not President Monson's church either. It is Christ's church. If he wants women to have the priesthood (or any other group for that matter) he has it in His power to make that clear to his anointed. I believe in a big tent church. But the borders of the tent do not reach ark steadiers. Some want to steady the ark and will have to decide what they want more. 3
juliann Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 As for this not being about disagreement alone, yes you are all right. It's more than about disagreement. It's dissent mixed with action. Of course, you do realize that the Church "allowing" members to believe as they wish so long as they don't take any action to turn their beliefs into reality is not much of a freedom. This is demonstrated by what the 1st Amendment protects. It doesn't just protect the freedom of thought but the freedom of SPEECH (the ACT of trying to persuade others to your side). It protects the freedom to assemble to redress grievances (the ACT of getting together and protesting with others). OW's "crimes" here are all acts that fall within constitutional protection. That has been Kelly's problem all along...she has brought political activism into a religious community that, despite it's obvious political leanings and rogue gum flapping members, does not tolerate bringing politics into the worship space. The moderates aren't near as noisy but that doesn't mean they should be overlooked. Neylan McBaine, in particular, is all over the place. And she is welcomed into the chapel. I attended a "fireside" in the chapel of a Bay area church. I met Carol Lynn Pearson there. The differences in approach have a Rabbit and the Hare vibe to it. Moderates are pushing for almost everything OW is aside from priesthood (and they have a good philosophical position and point behind that that I think is even more empowering that just getting what men already do.) Their's is a hopeful and grandiose vision about discovery and restoration of the woman's place that I find far more compelling. I wonder to what extent actions against this smaller group will be perceived as against the larger. It would be helpful if meaningful steps were taken to reach out those those in this larger group. I recognize that some steps have been taken, but I have a hard time so far as seeing them as meaningful and significant. But absent that, there's the risk that this will be perceived as an attack against even those that hold legitimate concerns. Because as I said, I think Kelly's mistake was in not reaching out to the community, it will have little effect on the community (if anything even happens). What does have an effect, though, is the vilification of women under the guise of dissing Kelly, especially by male members who do have the advantage of priesthood linked positions, i.e., control or opportunity for it. (Control is not a bad word.) Kelly is still a member and a daughter of God. I can't think of a time where it is more critical for members to muzzle themselves and think about the repercussions of what they say about women as they claim to only want to protect or honor them. That is just as hard to sell as insisting this is only about disagreement. (If it was, I as a founder/board member of FairMormon would be in church jail by now.)
carbon dioxide Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 If my wife pokes me in the eye (and she has), I do not poke her back in the eye. And yes, she started it. But since I've been endowed with more physical strength, I don't respond in kind. So should priesthood holders (who have been endowed with the power of God) respond in kind to being "poked in the eye" by our sisters? Whatever happened to "To whom much is given, much is required?"If one truly believes that HF has reserved priesthood power for men, then it would seem that men are duty bound to NOT respond in kind to attack. Even if "she started it."Of course one may not have to resport to being poked in the eye with violence but should one do nothing? So your advice is for the Church to ignore Ordain Women, smile at them if need be and hopefully they just go away? Frankly I don't even know why this group is stopping with the Priesthood. The Church is named after a male. For equality sake, we should put the name of Mary in the name of the Church. Let it be called "the Church of Jesus Christ and Mary of Latter day Saints."
ERayR Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 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. And that is assuming God's position. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I love this statement in this Op-Ed article at the Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58060390-82/church-daughter-bishop-kelly.html.csphttp://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58060390-82/church-daughter-bishop-kelly.html.csp "But, during the past year, the church’s persecution of Ordain Women has turned my disturbingly straight arrow into a right proper agitator." So if I go and poke someone in the eye and they respond in strong way, they are persecuting me? It is not like the "Ordain Women" group was just minding their own business and the LDS Church found out about them and starting attacking them. This group went out of their way to get noticed by the Church. They got what they attention they wanted and can't complain about the reaction because they knew it was coming.Stupid Salt Lake Trib. "Now we enjoy loud laughter together. Now we listen to AC/DC in the house. Turned up to 11." Rofl you don't need to leave the church to listen to AC/DC, and you don't need to leave to turn it up to 11. Pantera anyone? "We'll Grind That Axe For a Long Time".
ERayR Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 The fall-out continues because of Ordain Women's activities: "Thanks to Kate Kelly’s bishop, I have my daughter back"http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58060390-82/church-daughter-bishop-kelly.html.csp With that attitude what has he done to Brigham Young in his book? I don't think I want to see.
Recommended Posts