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

[carbon dioxide]

In wonder how sister Kelly would react to this from Jesus

 

3 Nephi 11:28-30 "And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."

 

The Church has enough issues its plate. It is clear in my mind that regardless of one position on this issue, Ordain Women has started a lot of contention within the Church.  I have a hard time believing that Christ is even remotely amused at what Ordain Women has started. 

[carbon dioxide]

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".

I will agree with him on just one point in his article. AC/DC does have a few good songs.

[ERayR]

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.

 

Oh cut the hyperbole it is doing nothing for your arguments.  The Church is NOT restricting anybodies freedoms. Just giving them a choice and a chance to rethink their errors.

[carbon dioxide]

My final post on this isse for now is I know of one truth.  Somebody is in BIG trouble with the Lord at judgement day.  Either its Thomas S Monson for not getting a revelation for giving women the Priesthood or its Kate Kelly for demanding the Priesthood and starting a big problem in the Church and the media that did not need to happen.  Somebody is going to get a big time chewing out by the Lord unless some serious repentance by the offending party occurs.

[mormonnewb]

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.

Believe it or not, we agree. The Brethren should guide the Church as they feel inspired by The Lord, whether it is popular or not. However, why does that mean that they can't just say, "No" and leave it at that. "We're not inspired to ordain women at this time, but thanks for asking. See you at General Conference!" Now, if the women start throwing Malatov cocktails at the Priesthood Sesion that's another matter, but simply saying, "Pretty please!" doesn't seem that bad to me.

[juliann]

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." 

You really need to stop mocking women.   Especially Mary.  This is what gives the church a bad rap.  Is "male" the first thing you think of when you think of Christ? Is it his maleness that makes him holy? Or his life and mission?

[mnn727]

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.

Post of the day!

[Mystery Meat]

People are going to hate me for saying this but I don't really care.

 

The problem we have here (in my correct opinion) is that people are applying the values their society on an infinite being. Call those values what you will: social justice, conservatism, libertarianism, progressivism, equality, freedom of speech, civil liberties, capitalism, socialism, etc. Based on my reading of the scriptures and not only Church doctrine but also its history, I think you can make a strong case that God doesn't give two cents about any of them, or if he does, he does not define them the way we do.

 

For example, God has either allowed or expressly commanded the following of His Church: polygamy, polyandry, genocide (read the Old Testament), priesthood bans (based on tribe and race), the United Order, marriage between man and woman only, and the list could go on and on. Even if some of those were mistakes of me, God allowed them to happen in his name. By men he had called to be his mouthpiece. Men who on other occasions he had/has spoken with FACE TO FACE. There are only two possible scenarios if we believe the Church's truth claims that make any logical sense. God commanded his prophets in each of the above examples or he allowed His servants to do them. Either way, God has a different perspective than us.

 

Whatever we think the Church SHOULD do, lets make sure we are clear that the Lord's opinion is the ONLY one that matters. And if we think we know what God would do...I would draw your attention to my above list of practices/policies that make no sense when viewed through a lens clouded by "societal values." Excommunication may be archaic in today's world. SSM may be in vogue. Gender equality (at least if it means priesthood for one and all) may be essential for some. 

 

As for me, I will side with the leaders of the Church 100 times out of 100.

[mnn727]

 but simply saying, "Pretty please!" doesn't seem that bad to me.

That's NOT what they have been doing

[ERayR]

People are going to hate me for saying this but I don't really care.

 

The problem we have here (in my correct opinion) is that people are applying the values their society on an infinite being. Call those values what you will: social justice, conservatism, libertarianism, progressivism, equality, freedom of speech, civil liberties, capitalism, socialism, etc. Based on my reading of the scriptures and not only Church doctrine but also its history, I think you can make a strong case that God doesn't give two cents about any of them, or if he does, he does not define them the way we do.

 

For example, God has either allowed or expressly commanded the following of His Church: polygamy, polyandry, genocide (read the Old Testament), priesthood bans (based on tribe and race), the United Order, marriage between man and woman only, and the list could go on and on. Even if some of those were mistakes of me, God allowed them to happen in his name. By men he had called to be his mouthpiece. Men who on other occasions he had/has spoken with FACE TO FACE. There are only two possible scenarios if we believe the Church's truth claims that make any logical sense. God commanded his prophets in each of the above examples or he allowed His servants to do them. Either way, God has a different perspective than us.

 

Whatever we think the Church SHOULD do, lets make sure we are clear that the Lord's opinion is the ONLY one that matters. And if we think we know what God would do...I would draw your attention to my above list of practices/policies that make no sense when viewed through a lens clouded by "societal values." Excommunication may be archaic in today's world. SSM may be in vogue. Gender equality (at least if it means priesthood for one and all) may be essential for some. 

 

As for me, I will side with the leaders of the Church 100 times out of 100.

 

Insert here>  Something from Joshua "As for me and my house we will serve. . . "

[toon]

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.)

 

Thanks.  I've often found your posts insightful.

 

I'll add that my college-age daughter no longer has any interest in the Church.  It's something that pains me, and I also recognise that this is on account of many things, one of which is probably attributable to my failures as an LDS parent.  But based on my conversations with her, another reason is the disparity in treatment that she experienced through Primary and Young Women's.  It was somethign that she saw and experienced, and it didn't sit right with her.  Granted, a good number of the girls (now adults) she grew up with are strong, solid members, some serving missions.  So it isn't a given that these disparities and insensitivies will drive someone out.  But they can be contributing factors.  What I don't see is any serious effort to even recognize that this might be a problem.  And this has little to to with OW, which I didn't see as effectively advocating on behalf of these kind of concerns.

[mormonnewb]

That's NOT what they have been doing

So WHAT have they been doing? Committing a "criminal trespass" during GC? Starting "discussions" to try to argue their point? The horrors ...

They have not done ANY of the things that I would have suggested had they been insane enough to ask me. They didn't issue a SINGLE ultimatum. They never once said, "Give us what we want OR ..."

They didn't threaten to quit the Church, stop serving in callings, stop paying tithes, stop sleeping with priesthood holders. And that would have been my OPENING salvo.

I'm a fan but OW isn't exactly "hardcore" when it comes to their activism. Yet, apparently asking TWICE is about all the rancor that the people of God can handle.

[toon]

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.

 

 

What if the answer is neither yes or no, but that I struggle with the questions, that I don't quite know.  And in the meantime, I also have other issues and concerns that I dont' quite feel the need to shut up about and kieep private.  Is the tent big enough for that?

[Mystery Meat]

What if the answer is neither yes or no, but that I struggle with the questions, that I don't quite know.  And in the meantime, I also have other issues and concerns that I dont' quite feel the need to shut up about and kieep private.  Is the tent big enough for that?

 

Well if you don't know if the prophets are led by God yet, that should priority number 1. Getting an answer to such a question requires humility, which I think entails shutting up about certain things and being obedient. If you can do that, then yes I think the tent is plenty big. 

 

Trust me when I say, I don't agree with everything the Church does or what the brethren say. But sometimes humility and obedience (which are really the same thing and together I will call them "faith") is the ONLY option.

 

Edit: disagreements and questions are fine. But when you use the phrase "don't quite feel the need to shut up" I assume a certain level of anger and cynicism. Honest questions are good. Angry, vocal, not shutting up about it is not.

Edited June 13, 2014 by lvjd66

[carbon dioxide]

Believe it or not, we agree. The Brethren should guide the Church as they feel inspired by The Lord, whether it is popular or not. However, why does that mean that they can't just say, "No" and leave it at that. "We're not inspired to ordain women at this time, but thanks for asking. See you at General Conference!" Now, if the women start throwing Malatov cocktails at the Priesthood Sesion that's another matter, but simply saying, "Pretty please!" doesn't seem that bad to me.

I really have no problem with them asking initially.  It did not bother me what they did in the October Conference.  It became more annoying to me in the April Conference.  I got personally more bothered when they said they would stop demanding to enter the Conference sessions but would try to organize groups to work for change.  So in my opinion, this is not a group that is just asking and saying please but they are demanding and they will not stop until the Church gives into their demands. 

 

I think the best way to handle this issue is perhaps not excommunicating Kate Kelly.  I think the body of the Relief Society needs to stand up and renounce Ordain Women.  The women of the Church need to stand united and say that this group does not represent us and we don't want or ask the Lord what they want.   Its easy for the Ordain Women to get cover when its the men coming down on them.  They can't take cover when its the body of women coming against them.

[carbon dioxide]

I have heard that some of this from Ordained Women may be coming in part from Sheryl Sandberg book "Lean in".  I never read the book but for those who have is this correct.

[toon]

Well if you don't know if the prophets are led by God yet, that should priority number 1. Getting an answer to such a question requires humility, which I think entails shutting up about certain things and being obedient. If you can do that, then yes I think the tent is plenty big. 

 

Trust me when I say, I don't agree with everything the Church does or what the brethren say. But sometimes humility and obedience (which are really the same thing and together I will call them "faith") is the ONLY option.

 

Doesn't sound like that big of a tent if it doesn't accommodate people with misplaced priorities (resolving doubts as priority number 1) or a lack of humility (can't shut up).

[Zakuska]

I really have no problem with them asking initially.  It did not bother me what they did in the October Conference.  It became more annoying to me in the April Conference.  I got personally more bothered when they said they would stop demanding to enter the Conference sessions but would try to organize groups to work for change.  So in my opinion, this is not a group that is just asking and saying please but they are demanding and they will not stop until the Church gives into their demands. 

 

I think the best way to handle this issue is perhaps not excommunicating Kate Kelly.  I think the body of the Relief Society needs to stand up and renounce Ordain Women.  The women of the Church need to stand united and say that this group does not represent us and we don't want or ask the Lord what they want.   Its easy for the Ordain Women to get cover when its the men coming down on them.  They can't take cover when its the body of women coming against them.

Amen. Excellent suggestion.

[mormonnewb]

I really have no problem with them asking initially.  It did not bother me what they did in the October Conference.  It became more annoying to me in the April Conference.  I got personally more bothered when they said they would stop demanding to enter the Conference sessions but would try to organize groups to work for change.  So in my opinion, this is not a group that is just asking and saying please but they are demanding and they will not stop until the Church gives into their demands. 

 

I think the best way to handle this issue is perhaps not excommunicating Kate Kelly.  I think the body of the Relief Society needs to stand up and renounce Ordain Women.  The women of the Church need to stand united and say that this group does not represent us and we don't want or ask the Lord what they want.   Its easy for the Ordain Women to get cover when its the men coming down on them.  They can't take cover when its the body of women coming against them.

We're on different sides of this issue, but I do like the way you think. Turning the women against one another would have been a brilliant countermove. Of course, I would have countered by trying to divide the flock on the basis of age (e.g., anyone over, say, 50 is simply too old and set in the ways to "get it").

It's too bad we weren't made generals for our respective sides. Sure, the damage to the Church would have been catastrophic but the battle would have been glorious.

[Mystery Meat]

Doesn't sound like that big of a tent if it doesn't accommodate people with misplaced priorities (resolving doubts as priority number 1) or a lack of humility (can't shut up).

 

I didn't say they should be excommunicated. I just don't think they will find themselves within the proverbial tent. People inside the tent, which is where we should want to be, are those who are enjoying all the benefits of being Mormon. 

[carbon dioxide]

From the mission statement of Ordain Women

 

"The fundamental tenets of Mormonism support gender equality: God is male and female, father and mother, and all of us can progress to be like them someday. Priesthood, we are taught, is essential to this process.  Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings." http://ordainwomen.org/mission/

 

Of course Mormon women can progress to be like them without getting the Priesthood.  There is no super exaltation status for Mormon women who could get the priesthood.  A faithful woman who does not have the priesthood will be exalted just as any woman would be if they got the priesthood. So getting the Priesthood gives the women nothing in terms of eternal blessings.

 

More to the point of this quote, it says that women MUST be ordained.  Which means they are not asking or saying please.  They are not asking for clarification on LDS doctrine.  They are demanding it.  Nothing less than women getting the priesthood is acceptable to them when they say "women must be ordained:  In my view this is not a group that one can even have discussion with.  They have made up their minds. 

[maxrep12]

ABC News video. They seem to point out the "I'm a Mormon" add campaign  as a veneer of diversity and acceptance.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/church-day-saints-mormons-threatened-excommunication-24121034

 

Natasha Helfer Parker's blog, has been picked up by TIME:

 

http://time.com/2864847/differentiate-excommunicate-tolerance/

[maxrep12]

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. 

 

 

Uh, what on earth do you call prop 8 then???

Edited June 14, 2014 by maxrep12

[juliann]

Thanks.  I've often found your posts insightful.

 

I'll add that my college-age daughter no longer has any interest in the Church.  It's something that pains me, and I also recognise that this is on account of many things, one of which is probably attributable to my failures as an LDS parent.  But based on my conversations with her, another reason is the disparity in treatment that she experienced through Primary and Young Women's.  It was somethign that she saw and experienced, and it didn't sit right with her.  Granted, a good number of the girls (now adults) she grew up with are strong, solid members, some serving missions.  So it isn't a given that these disparities and insensitivies will drive someone out.  But they can be contributing factors.  What I don't see is any serious effort to even recognize that this might be a problem.  And this has little to to with OW, which I didn't see as effectively advocating on behalf of these kind of concerns.

I can't count the number of times I have said this same thing.  For me, a big piece of the solution is just admitting what is.  Rather than trying to make up reasons why women are treated equally, admit they aren't. We are falling into the same thing we criticize if we think that has to be a bad thing. Admit it!  Equal has a dictionary meaning, why we think we can change that and convince anyone else is mystifying.  We can cut through half of the argument if we just start with the reality of the situation and start from there.  Obviously, current practice has built a strong and vibrant community...to the point there is a battle for ownership. We need to be concentrating on why those inside the church may be more satisfied focusing on making the church work than outside standards of equality. That doesn't mean that a lot of things don't need to be improved and a large number of women don't want better treatment.  But it seems right now that the automatic response is just to deny, deny, deny.  So I well understand the frustration that would lead to an organization like OW. 

 

I am sorry to hear about your daughter....but again, I well understand it...and I hold out hope because I don't think we as a church are barely starting.   I worry for my daughter as things are. The church must be well aware we are losing women over this or they wouldn't be making changes. And I think there is much to look forward to.  This is an exciting time to be a woman in the church.

[Zakuska]

Uh, what on earth do you call prop 8 then???

you might have a point if large amounts of sacrament meeting time had been dedicated to promoting prop 8.