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

[juliann]

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

 

Prop 8. 

 

I'm in CA, it was not brought into worship space. They wouldn't even let people donate money on church property, you had to go to that Marriage organization spearheading it. The most bizarre church experience I ever had was the Sunday after the surprise win was announced. There was not one word said in church...not in classes, not even in halls as I passed through. I'm sure there are other experiences...but I think I accounted for that with the mention of rogue members.

 

How many churches are there that encourage you to vote but refuse to mention candidates?

[cinepro]

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.

But we believe in fallible leaders that, while inspired, may make major mistakes when it comes to priesthood policies. So it doesn't show a lack of faith to question policies; it shows faith that our leaders can be inspired by God.   The lack of faith is to argue for an unchanging status quo.

Also, that's not what an "ark steadier" is.

Assuming the story actually happened as reported, it’s all rather silly.

The ark isn’t God. The ark is a heavy gold chest, and apparently it was being pulled around the countryside by some oxen. The ark didn’t fly around on its own power, it didn’t have legs like a horse. It was a heavy box that people had to lift and carry, or animals had to be employed to move.

So Uzza is transporting a valuable gold chest, and the oxen stumble, apparently putting the ark at risk of falling to the ground. Are we really saying that if we were in his positition, we would stand still and watch the ark fall to the ground, spilling its contents? Was Uzza supposed to have faith that even though the Lord had allowed the oxen to stumble, he would miraculously save the ark from falling?

And since the Lord works through His followers, how was Uzza to know he hadn’t been placed in that position to act for the Lord in steadying the ark?

 

So when someone complains about "ark steadiers", they are saying that they would have stood by and watched the most holy object on the face of the Earth fall to the ground, spilling its contents.  And then they would have stood there, looking at the mess on the ground and the toppled ark and done nothing but wonder why God would let such a thing happen.

[Calm]

"What I don't see is any serious effort to even recognize that this might be a problem"

I have heard things over the decades that leads me to assume there is there is a serious effort...but it has to remain assumption based because of limited communication on many changes and the impact they are having in the local and global areas. I will be very interested to see how the new YW's board function. This is a major change and if we hear little about it chances are communication of what is going on won't be happening soon.

[maxrep12]

Prop 8. 

 

I'm in CA, it was not brought into worship space. They wouldn't even let people donate money on church property, you had to go to that Marriage organization spearheading it. The most bizarre church experience I ever had was the Sunday after the surprise win was announced. There was not one word said in church...not in classes, not even in halls as I passed through. I'm sure there are other experiences...but I think I accounted for that with the mention of rogue members.

 

How many churches are there that encourage you to vote but refuse to mention candidates?

Bishops read letters endorsing prop 8 in a vigorous manner, over pulpits. Prop 8 was brought into the "religious space", in a very real way. Do we need to start a new thread to clarify this Julian? I am ready and waiting.

 

"Documents compiled by Mormon supporters of same-sex marriage—including campaign time lines and donor profiles—show that LDS Church ecclesiastical structures, resources, and relationships were fully mobilized to generate the majority of volunteers and donations for the Yes on 8 campaign, even as Church members were coached to handle their Mormonism carefully in campaign contributions and activities.

There was nothing plausibly deniable about the Church’s relationship to the Proposition 8 campaign when, in Sunday meetings on June 29, 2008, a letter from Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President Thomas Monson was read over the pulpit of every Mormon congregation in California urging Church members to “do all you can” to support the ballot measure.

Early donations from Mormons were solicited in July, when letters read in Sunday meetings of men’s and women’s church auxiliaries conveyed a $10 million fundraising goal for July and August and instructed Church members to donate exclusively to protectmarriage.com. Donors were asked to identify their home congregation on donation forms, according to campaign observers, so that Mormon congregations could track their progress towards meeting fundraising targets set for each congregation based on their ability to pay as assessed from records of church offerings.

The Church-coordinated fundraising drive intensified in late August, when select LDS Church members identified as potential large donors were invited to participate in conference calls with members of the Quorum of the Seventy, a high-ranking Church leadership body. (Mormon Yes on 8 campaign observers believe that tithing records were used to identify call participants.) On the conference calls, high-ranking church leaders encouraged potential large donors to individually contribute $25,000 to protectmarriage.com."

[Zakuska]

Come on David, that'll never stick unless you use a cute alliteration.

im expecting 8 more. John and kate + 8

[Tacenda]

You might be interested in reading the following. This was written by John Dehlin for a reporter and then he also posted it to Facebook in response to questions about the Stake President Letter (7-June-2014). It gives a better idea of what the Stake President was referring to and provides Dehlin's point of view. He didn't "cut himself from being a member". (Note: He did not include the email to the Bishop in his Facebook post, it is referred to here because he gave it to the report who he originally wrote this for. And the Stake President letter is easily found online so I won't bother to post another link here.

"A quick clarification about the stuff in my stake president's letter about my bishop.

"I've been investigated by the church at least three times in the past 10 years. Every time I have complied willingly, meeting for HOURS with my leaders trying to help them understand what I'm doing with Mormon Stories. This includes a period two years ago where I met weekly for an hour and a half each week with my stake president for over a year's time. It was an incredibly heavy investment of time and energy -- and again, I was exonerated. These processes are always emotionally draining for me, but in the past, I have been willing to engage in them out of respect for the church and out of a desire to build understanding.

"When my bishop called me into his office in February, he told me that he was going to begin yet another investigation, and used very offensive language (to me) during that interview (suggesting that I might be a wolf in sheep's clothing."

"He read Alma 5:59-60 out loud to me, which reads:

"59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

60 And now I say unto you that the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed."

"He then told me that he I should expect to hear from him soon for the beginning of (yet) another round of investigatory meetings.

One thing that was SUPER hard for me about this was that my beliefs had not changed a stitch from the previous year, when I ended things on what I believed were good terms with my stake president....when he let me baptize and confirm my son.

"I came home immediately and spoke with my wife (Margi), and she told me that she felt as though we had been through far too many of these investigations in the past (always to be exonerated at the end), that the process had become demeaning (in her eyes), and that as my wife, she asked me to please not drag the family through this process again. Consequently, I sent the email pasted below to Bishop Hunt (my bishop).

"To be clear - I never indicated a desire to have my membership revoked or rescinded. This was our way of asking the bishop to please leave us alone (which he has thankfully done). We have continued to attend church over the past five months, our daughter currently is serving in a leadership capacity in the church, and both of our other daughters have spoken in church over the past year (if my memory serves me).

"Frankly, we were simply insulted by the Bishop's communications with us, and tired/no longer willing to participate an any more investigations.

I hope this makes sense."

I'm posting this for everyone's information only. I am not interested in debating the content and I don't have the time to get involved in this very active thread again. If you have a question you can send a private message. I just thought that this was useful information. And I apologize if someone else already posted it.

Thanks for posting this, I was trying to find Smac's quote referring to John discontinuing some activity in the ward and explain because I'm not able to c/p. Now I don't have to, maybe this will answer the quote somewhat.

[ERayR]

 

But we believe in fallible leaders that, while inspired, may make major mistakes when it comes to priesthood policies. So it doesn't show a lack of faith to question policies; it shows faith that our leaders can be inspired by God.   The lack of faith is to argue for an unchanging status quo.

 

And whose job do we believe it is to correct those hypothetical mistakes?

[carbon dioxide]

But we believe in fallible leaders that, while inspired, may make major mistakes when it comes to priesthood policies. So it doesn't show a lack of faith to question policies; it shows faith that our leaders can be inspired by God.   The lack of faith is to argue for an unchanging status quo.

 

Yes our leaders are infallible but have all leaders since the days of Adam and Eve made the same mistakes as our leaders.  Was Adam so blinded that he did not see that Eve was supposed to be ordained?  And if our leaders can make such major mistakes on this issue, what other major mistakes they are making.  Perhaps our leaders are wrong on gay marriage too.  Perhaps our views are just according to tradition rather than what one wants. Perhaps the charge I hear from some could be true.  That in time not only will the Church accept gay marriage but have gay temple sealings.  I personally don't believe that who knows.  Maybe I am as wrong on women and the priesthood as I am about gay marriage.  Perhaps much of what I believe to be true is not really true.

[Storm Rider]

Yes our leaders are infallible but have all leaders since the days of Adam and Eve made the same mistakes as our leaders.  Was Adam so blinded that he did not see that Eve was supposed to be ordained?  And if our leaders can make such major mistakes on this issue, what other major mistakes they are making.  Perhaps our leaders are wrong on gay marriage too.  Perhaps our views are just according to tradition rather than what one wants. Perhaps the charge I hear from some could be true.  That in time not only will the Church accept gay marriage but have gay temple sealings.  I personally don't believe that who knows.  Maybe I am as wrong on women and the priesthood as I am about gay marriage.  Perhaps much of what I believe to be true is not really true.

 

...blown about by every wind of doctrine would define your position; there is no foundation. It is one thing to be of little faith; it is quite another to appear satisfied about it. 

 

My distaste for the OW movement has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with their actions and choices. They clearly demonstrate they have no desire to seek inspiration; it is their way or the highway.  To make matters worse is that they then create discussions to lead away anyone who will listen.  I don't care what you are selling; with those tactics anyone should be invited to the door with the sure knowledge that the Holy Spirit has no part in their action. 

[BCSpace]

 I don't care what you are selling; with those tactics anyone should be invited to the door with the sure knowledge that the Holy Spirit has no part in their action.

 

 

One of those tactics is seeking more publicity and they have relished publishing what they call the Church's persecution of them far and wide in order to gain sympathy and accolytes.  In may ways, this is exactly what they want; to either get away with what they have been doing or make hay when the Church fights back.  The Church has been very patient.  It has bent over backwards to be accomodating.  Given the two choices, I'd say the latter is the best choice as they lose the perceived authoritativeness that comes with Church membership.

Edited June 14, 2014 by BCSpace

[Mystery Meat]

But we believe in fallible leaders that, while inspired, may make major mistakes when it comes to priesthood policies. So it doesn't show a lack of faith to question policies; it shows faith that our leaders can be inspired by God.   The lack of faith is to argue for an unchanging status quo.

Also, that's not what an "ark steadier" is.

Assuming the story actually happened as reported, it’s all rather silly.

The ark isn’t God. The ark is a heavy gold chest, and apparently it was being pulled around the countryside by some oxen. The ark didn’t fly around on its own power, it didn’t have legs like a horse. It was a heavy box that people had to lift and carry, or animals had to be employed to move.

So Uzza is transporting a valuable gold chest, and the oxen stumble, apparently putting the ark at risk of falling to the ground. Are we really saying that if we were in his positition, we would stand still and watch the ark fall to the ground, spilling its contents? Was Uzza supposed to have faith that even though the Lord had allowed the oxen to stumble, he would miraculously save the ark from falling?

And since the Lord works through His followers, how was Uzza to know he hadn’t been placed in that position to act for the Lord in steadying the ark?

 

So when someone complains about "ark steadiers", they are saying that they would have stood by and watched the most holy object on the face of the Earth fall to the ground, spilling its contents.  And then they would have stood there, looking at the mess on the ground and the toppled ark and done nothing but wonder why God would let such a thing happen.

 

Sigh. The ark steadier story is there for a reason. As I explained, there are two options to explain any "hard" doctrine. One God commanded it to be so. Two God allowed his leaders to have it be so. God could have come to John Taylor, Heber J. Grant, or Harold B. Lee and said, "See this sword? If you don't give the priesthood to every worth male regardless of race, I will kill you." He didn't. That has to be taken into consideration.

 

Edit: I will add a third option. God doesn't direct this Church. Its leaders are not inspired Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. If you believe that, you probably shouldn't be here. The tent probably isn't nor should it be that big. Just my opinion.

 

And so yes, Uzza should not have touched the ark. It was not his job. He did not have authority to do it. And for the record he should have had faith that the Lord would protect the ark from hitting the ground if he wanted to (I think the Lord knew exactly how Uzza would react in that situation and he used him to teach a very valuable lesson to people in OUR day). Likewise, all of the modern day would-be Presidents of the Church should have a little faith and let those who the Lord has given power and authority to do the job. Even if they think the Church is going to come crashing to the ground (hint: it wont...even without their steadying hand). 

 

Yes, the leaders of the Church are indeed fallible. That doesn't change the fact that if God REALLY wanted the leaders to correct a hard doctrine he could find a way to make it happen without any social protests and publicity whoring. If you think that is how revelation works...you don't really understand the Lord's way. 

Edited June 14, 2014 by lvjd66

[why me]

Bishops read letters endorsing prop 8 in a vigorous manner, over pulpits. Prop 8 was brought into the "religious space", in a very real way. Do we need to start a new thread to clarify this Julian? I am ready and waiting.

 

"Documents compiled by Mormon supporters of same-sex marriage—including campaign time lines and donor profiles—show that LDS Church ecclesiastical structures, resources, and relationships were fully mobilized to generate the majority of volunteers and donations for the Yes on 8 campaign, even as Church members were coached to handle their Mormonism carefully in campaign contributions and activities.

There was nothing plausibly deniable about the Church’s relationship to the Proposition 8 campaign when, in Sunday meetings on June 29, 2008, a letter from Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President Thomas Monson was read over the pulpit of every Mormon congregation in California urging Church members to “do all you can” to support the ballot measure.

Early donations from Mormons were solicited in July, when letters read in Sunday meetings of men’s and women’s church auxiliaries conveyed a $10 million fundraising goal for July and August and instructed Church members to donate exclusively to protectmarriage.com. Donors were asked to identify their home congregation on donation forms, according to campaign observers, so that Mormon congregations could track their progress towards meeting fundraising targets set for each congregation based on their ability to pay as assessed from records of church offerings.

The Church-coordinated fundraising drive intensified in late August, when select LDS Church members identified as potential large donors were invited to participate in conference calls with members of the Quorum of the Seventy, a high-ranking Church leadership body. (Mormon Yes on 8 campaign observers believe that tithing records were used to identify call participants.) On the conference calls, high-ranking church leaders encouraged potential large donors to individually contribute $25,000 to protectmarriage.com."

The church supported prop 8 and that makes all the differences. What Kelly was doing was not supported by the church. I don't think that it could ever be possible to challenge the church leaders over a period of tiem by organizing a media campaign, having organized discussions etc. Let me put it this way: would you support of a group of members who were active, who would go to the media and campaign for the restoration of polygamy, organized discussions about it, have organized video chats etc and challenge the leaders to pray about it by organizing demonstrations on temple square even after the church told them not to?

[Robert F. Smith]

Prop 8. 

 

I'm in CA, it was not brought into worship space. They wouldn't even let people donate money on church property, you had to go to that Marriage organization spearheading it. The most bizarre church experience I ever had was the Sunday after the surprise win was announced. There was not one word said in church...not in classes, not even in halls as I passed through. I'm sure there are other experiences...but I think I accounted for that with the mention of rogue members.

 

How many churches are there that encourage you to vote but refuse to mention candidates?

I was in California during the Prop 8 campaign, and that was my experience as well.

 

The Roman Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon congregations all officially supported Prop 8 vigorously, but the LDS strictures were that no actual camapaign actions could take place on LDS property, and they did not.  It is one thing to read recommendations over the lectern, as all these churches did (according to the IRS, it is legal to recommend policies over the lectern, but not candidates).

 

Not all Mormons supported Prop 8, so it would have been inappropriate to have engaged in political activity on Church property.

 

The upshot of all this is that the Mormons cannot be accused of supporting polygyny, which will be made legal as a result of the current judicial tide in favor of non-traditional marriage.  How ironic!!

[Tsuzuki]

Let me put it this way: would you support of a group of members who were active, who would go to the media and campaign for the restoration of polygamy, organized discussions about it, have organized video chats etc and challenge the leaders to pray about it by organizing demonstrations on temple square even after the church told them not to?

Yes.

[why me]

Yes.

Of course, it would all depend on which side someone were on. In most cases those that wish the church to change or even wish it harm or prove it man made would wish for social pressure to change the church. The faithful in most cases would not be in favor of such social pressure. The  actions of OW did not seem faith supportive in my humble opinion.

[Tsuzuki]

Of course, it would all depend on which side someone were on. In most cases those that wish the church to change or even wish it harm or prove it man made would wish for social pressure to change the church. The faithful in most cases would not be in favor of such social pressure. The  actions of OW did not seem faith supportive in my humble opinion.

I would support anyone's efforts to have open discussion about anything, regardless of what side I was on, if any. As for pressuring leaders to pray about things, I thought that was fundamentally how this church worked from the very beginning of the Restoration. Have the heavens been closed again or something? Granted, OW may not get what they want, but they should never be demonized for asking.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Tsuzuki

[Pahoran]

We disagree on two points.

1). I don't think that you "protect" the community by trying to silence opposing points of view. To be clear, I appreciate that the Church wouldn't allow someone to teach "falsehoods" in church. But to say that one can't voice a dissenting opinion OUTSIDE of Church goes too far.

2). I am not the only one concerned with appearances around here. I wasn't the one who spent tons of money on the "I'm a Mormon" campaign trying to show people how "hip" and "diverse" we are. Perhaps, next year, we can run a "I'm an Excommunicated Mormon" campaign.

Yes, perhaps you can.

After all, "we" is a first-person plural. You were including yourself in that set.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

No.

The question is whether actively proselytizing anti-Mormons should be allowed to continue marketing themselves as Mormons.

The question is whether the Church has any obligation to provide a forum for its enemies to attack us.

Those who accuse the Church of trying to "silence" Ms Kelly and Mister Dehlin are lying outright. If they, or either of them, are excommunicated, they won't be "silenced" at all; they will continue to be entirely free to say whatever they please. They'll just be saying it outside the community of the Saints.

Actually IMHO they already are; their excommunication will simply make that clear.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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."

You are getting hung up on an analogy. Nobody is attacking Ms Kelly. Those whose responsibility it is to be the watchmen on the tower are concerned that her agitation may be incompatible with her covenants as a Latter-day Saint, and are asking he to account for that.

And that, I emphasise, is their responsibility.

They would be remiss if they failed to carry it out.

And, just so you know: I can't think of a more idiotic argument than an appeal to the calendar.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rongo]

Dehlin has posted on his facebook page that the June 18 date has been postponed in lieu of a June 29 meeting with his stake president, who has expressed a desire to "de-escalate."

 

If this is true, and if the "Dehlin cycle" again kicks in (Dehlin expresses penitence, is granted a reprieve by priesthood leaders, and goes "radio silent" for a brief period, before resuming his attacks on the Church), it will remind me of an incident from my mission that is an inside joke between me and my wife (we refer to this incident when encountering people gullibly believing that certain people will do or not do things, contrary to track record and circumstances).

 

The sisters in a city I served in frequently had gullibility and naivety incidents. In one of these, a man invited them in (they technically should not have gone in), and he was wearing just a bathrobe. They all sat down, and he stood up and took off his robe (he was completely naked). They got up and said they needed to leave, and he apologized and put his robe back on. They all sat back down, and he got back up and took off his robe again. They quickly left.

 

How many times does Dehlin get to take off his robe and then apologize and put it back on and promise that it won't happen again?

Edited June 14, 2014 by rongo

[Tacenda]

Ten times....

[Teancum]

No.The question is whether actively proselytizing anti-Mormons should be allowed to continue marketing themselves as Mormons.The question is whether the Church has any obligation to provide a forum for its enemies to attack us.Those who accuse the Church of trying to "silence" Ms Kelly and Mister Dehlin are lying outright. If they, or either of them, are excommunicated, they won't be "silenced" at all; they will continue to be entirely free to say whatever they please. They'll just be saying it outside the community of the Saints.Actually IMHO they already are; their excommunication will simply make that clear.Regards,Pahoran

And the yet the question still is whether either in question fit the awful boggie monster straw-man you paint for them above. Those who paint such an extreme are lying outright as well. While both may be in some state or element of apostasy both are a far cry from being enemies of the church or active proselytizing anti-Mornmons.

Well I am sorry to disappoint you and perhaps others here but for at least Dehiln the outcome is much less clear. Here is a recent post from John's Facebook page:

A quick update - My stake president has agreed to meet with me on June 29th, expressing a desire for de-escalation. The June 18th timeline has been suspended.

The outcome for John may still be the one you seem to be drooling over in glee but perhaps not. We will see. For Kelly my guess is her web site,discussions and protests may put her beyond the bounds of working put something less harsh.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Teancum

[carbon dioxide]

I believe the overriding condition that both Kelly and Dehlin appear to have is the one that many have including myself and that is the sin of pride.  It manifests itself differently but it all comes back to that.  Neither are going to change until they deal with that issue.  This is especially true with Kate Kelly.  She thinks she is entitled to the Priesthood. God owes it to her.  She really forgets the larger perspective that every single blessing that God has offerred to a faithful priestoood man is offerred to a sister who is faithful.  Exaltation is exaltation.  There is no super exaltation state awaiting a sister if they get the priesthood.  Kate Kelly if she is faithful to what the Lord asks of her to do will be granted the same exact exaltation that Thomas S Monson will be granted if he is faithful to his callings.   If anyone really has a right to complain it is Thomas Monson because he is asked far more of by the Lord to do things than we are including Kate Kelly.  But he does not complain because he understands the gospel that its not about comparing ourselves to other people and seeing if the Lord is treating other people better than ourselves and seeing if God is being unfair. (I personally do this a lot in my life and I need to repent of this attitude.)  We just have to do our respective assignment and we gain eternal life.  Kate Kelly assignment is to do her job that the Lord asks of her.  If it means she does not get the priesthood, big deal.  She gets eternal life.  What more can anyone ask.
 

[Duncan]

Dehlin has posted on his facebook page that the June 18 date has been postponed in lieu of a June 29 meeting with his stake president, who has expressed a desire to "de-escalate."

 

If this is true, and if the "Dehlin cycle" again kicks in (Dehlin expresses penitence, is granted a reprieve by priesthood leaders, and goes "radio silent" for a brief period, before resuming his attacks on the Church), it will remind me of an incident from my mission that is an inside joke between me and my wife (we refer to this incident when encountering people gullibly believing that certain people will do or not do things, contrary to track record and circumstances).

 

The sisters in a city I served in frequently had gullibility and naivety incidents. In one of these, a man invited them in (they technically should not have gone in), and he was wearing just a bathrobe. They all sat down, and he stood up and took off his robe (he was completely naked). They got up and said they needed to leave, and he apologized and put his robe back on. They all sat back down, and he got back up and took off his robe again. They quickly left.

 

How many times does Dehlin get to take off his robe and then apologize and put it back on and promise that it won't happen again?

 

 

He also reposted his  "Why I stay" on June 12, after everything hit the fan. The Skeptic in me says he is doing that just so if he gets exed he'll look like the victim because he claims he stays and is a wonderful member and the big bad Church bullied him and pushed him out and so forth. We'll see I guess

[Duncan]

I believe the overriding condition that both Kelly and Dehlin appear to have is the one that many have including myself and that is the sin of pride.  It manifests itself differently but it all comes back to that.  Neither are going to change until they deal with that issue.  This is especially true with Kate Kelly.  She thinks she is entitled to the Priesthood. God owes it to her.  She really forgets the larger perspective that every single blessing that God has offerred to a faithful priestoood man is offerred to a sister who is faithful.  Exaltation is exaltation.  There is no super exaltation state awaiting a sister if they get the priesthood.  Kate Kelly if she is faithful to what the Lord asks of her to do will be granted the same exact exaltation that Thomas S Monson will be granted if he is faithful to his callings.   If anyone really has a right to complain it is Thomas Monson because he is asked far more of by the Lord to do things than we are including Kate Kelly.  But he does not complain because he understands the gospel that its not about comparing ourselves to other people and seeing if the Lord is treating other people better than ourselves and seeing if God is being unfair. (I personally do this a lot in my life and I need to repent of this attitude.)  We just have to do our respective assignment and we gain eternal life.  Kate Kelly assignment is to do her job that the Lord asks of her.  If it means she does not get the priesthood, big deal.  She gets eternal life.  What more can anyone ask.

 

 

I hate to say but what would people like Dehlin, Kelly and a million other people be without the internet? hometown heroes, which is fine to many, but not to others

 

Alma 29:3  "But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me." Not everyone can or should be a celebrity