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

[mormonnewb]

I suppose that that would be great if I were a chronic philanderer with women. I would hope never to be excommunicated and  be forgiven. But it seems that the early church at the time of paul just may have excommunicated me. See 1st Cor. 5: 9-11 and 2 Thes: 3:14 Your equation was not working at the time of the early church. Why?

 

1 Corinthians 5:9-11

 

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

 

and

 

2 Thessalonians 3:14

 

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.

We seem to have a conflict between Jesus and Paul. I guess it's a good thing that I didn't join The Church of Paul of Latter-day Saints.

[why me]

If you want to follow the likes of Kelly and Dehlin to influence your vote, then go at it. No one is stopping you. And the church also has every right to determine who is allowed to remain as its members.

So it was at the time of James and Paul, not to mention peter too in the early church. But today is the age of new ageism where no one should be disciplined and all ideas should be respected inside a disunited body.

[why me]

We seem to have a conflict between Jesus and Paul. I guess it's a good thing that I didn't join The Church of Paul of Latter-day Saints.

It just wasn't paul but james and peter too, apostles of Jesus Christ after Christ was crucified. What to do? Maybe these three people lost their way? Should we take that position? Even jesus told the sinner to sin no more? Why?

 

The purity of the church was very important in order to protect it from the pagans and apostates who were influencing the members.

Edited June 14, 2014 by why me

[juliann]

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.

If I may butt in.....I have a different take.  Evidently KK has said she will resign. That in addition to her leaving the country would seem to put her in compliance in some important respects even though she isn't doing it for that purpose.  I'd be more worried about Dehlin since he has already asked for no contact from the church and has admitted he isn't a believer.  I have a relative who did that and after many years she was stunned when her name was removed from the records, that upset me, too and I still don't understand why the bishop wouldn't have gotten her permission.  But I do think members are tired of having to chase down those who don't want contact. 

 

He also has a much much longer record of conflict with the church so it might be more of a three strikes sort of situation.  And to be cynical, he isn't even getting top billing in the press.  I have yet to run into anyone but internet denizens who know who he is...aside from those whose friends and family members have left the church and offer his stuff up as a reason.  There is a lot more of that going on than his supporters seem to realize because these are not internet people and they don't post about it, they send emails.  

[mormonnewb]

If we can ever get ourselves to accepting the Gospel and the word of God just exactly as he has delivered it and not always be trying to update, adjust, reinterpret, or explain away what he has said we will be in so much better a state.  We are all (and I include myself) so stuck on our own viewpoints.  Hopefully one day I will stop worrying about what I think and only worry about what God thinks.

It's no wonder that we will all have to be set in order before Christ returns, and that it will start on "his house".

Isn't the point of continuing revelation to update, adjust, reinterpret and explain the Gospel?

[Mystery Meat]

So you object to using The Truth to define your personal political-beliefs?

Is a person to support the Ten Commandments on Sunday, then turn and vote on Tuesday for adulterous-conniving-treasury stealing politicians who use arguments of covetousness to attract their votes?

If you want to follow the likes of Kelly and Dehlin to influence your vote, then go at it. No one is stopping you. And the church also has every right to determine who is allowed to remain as its members.

 

You would and me probably vote the same way every November. But I am not naive enough to think that truth (as you call it) or the fullness of the gospel can be found in any political party. They (meaning any ideology) are at best gross corruptions of truth. If you think conservatism does not conflict with eternal truth at any point...you are wrong.

[JLHPROF]

Isn't the point of continuing revelation to update, adjust, reinterpret and explain the Gospel?

 

No.  It isn't.  And that belief is an excuse used by many men over the many years to lead people into wrong paths.

The popes claimed continuing revelation and we ended up with a great apostasy and an edited Bible until the entire gospel had to be restored to earth from scratch.

 

The purpose of continuing revelation is to add more information about the eternities and to reveal more of God's will for mortality.  It is not to rethink or change previously revealed truth and to cause or badger God to change his mind on issues.

 

 

"And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case; and that in a council of High Priests. It is a great thing to inquire at the hands of God, or to come into His presence; and we feel fearful to approach Him on subjects that are of little or no consequence, to satisfy the queries of individuals, especially about things the knowledge of which men ought to obtain in all sincerity, before God, for themselves, in humility by the prayer of faith;"  (TPJS 22)

 

[why me]

Isn't the point of continuing revelation to update, adjust, reinterpret and explain the Gospel?

This seems to be a contradiction what you wrote that you were glad that it is not the church of paul. Could it be that paul received revelation about such a process of disfellowshipping?

[mormonnewb]

For those who continually admonish us "wayward souls" that the Brethren are always acting out the will of The Lord, do you really think that this Dehlin debacle is what The Lord had in mind? You really think that the ruler of all of heaven and earth said, "Send Dehlin a letter threatening excommunication, that he will circulate to the press. After two days of the Church being ridiculed in the press, contact Dehlin again to offer to de-escalate. That way, in addition to being seen as 'backwards', my Church can be seen as 'feckless' as well. You will also demonstrate to all of the other 'unfaithful' Mormons how to get away with their disloyalty?"

Now, don't get me wrong. HF's ways are not our ways. And He has certainly used unorthodox methods to accomplish his purposes (eg, Gideon's army, the walls of Jericho, etc.).

But is it possible that SOMEONE in the Church made a miscalculation here and that it's POSSIBLE that Church leaders could be ... cover the ears of your little ones ... WRONG?

[Tiki]

You would and me probably vote the same way every November. But I am not naive enough to think that truth (as you call it) or the fullness of the gospel can be found in any political party. They (meaning any ideology) are at best gross corruptions of truth. If you think conservatism does not conflict with eternal truth at any point...you are wrong.

Did I ever say it did not conflict? What notions float around in your head? Have you ever heard of making the best choice available?

[Mystery Meat]

Did I ever say it did not conflict? What notions float around in your head? Have you ever heard of making the best choice available?

 

You are missing the point. Some people think that progressives are the best choice. They are just as good of Mormons and are no further from the truth than you.

[mormonnewb]

This seems to be a contradiction what you wrote that you were glad that it is not the church of paul. Could it be that paul received revelation about such a process of disfellowshipping?

It seems that contradictions abound here

For the record, while I believe in continuing revelation, I am skeptical by nature and tend to discount revelation that is contrary to the words of the Master Himself (or even sometimes, my own self-important views).

[Mystery Meat]

For those who continually admonish us "wayward souls" that the Brethren are always acting out the will of The Lord, do you really think that this Dehlin debacle is what The Lord had in mind? You really think that the ruler of all of heaven and earth said, "Send Dehlin a letter threatening excommunication, that he will circulate to the press. After two days of the Church being ridiculed in the press, contact Dehlin again to offer to de-escalate. That way, in addition to being seen as 'backwards', my Church can be seen as 'feckless' as well. You will also demonstrate to all of the other 'unfaithful' Mormons how to get away with their disloyalty?"

Now, don't get me wrong. HF's ways are not our ways. And He has certainly used unorthodox methods to accomplish his purposes (eg, Gideon's army, the walls of Jericho, etc.).

But is it possible that SOMEONE in the Church made a miscalculation here and that it's POSSIBLE that Church leaders could be ... cover the ears of your little ones ... WRONG?

 

You are missing the point. I explained this already. Read post #811, which I so amazingly drafted. It doesn't really matter if they are wrong in this instance or any other. They are the key holders. They are the Lord's anointed. Leadership of the Church is their responsibility. Not yours or mine or Kate Kelly's or John Dehlin's. 

 

Don't be an ark steadier.

[JLHPROF]

For those who continually admonish us "wayward souls" that the Brethren are always acting out the will of The Lord, do you really think that this Dehlin debacle is what The Lord had in mind? You really think that the ruler of all of heaven and earth said, "Send Dehlin a letter threatening excommunication, that he will circulate to the press. After two days of the Church being ridiculed in the press, contact Dehlin again to offer to de-escalate. That way, in addition to being seen as 'backwards', my Church can be seen as 'feckless' as well. You will also demonstrate to all of the other 'unfaithful' Mormons how to get away with their disloyalty?"

Now, don't get me wrong. HF's ways are not our ways. And He has certainly used unorthodox methods to accomplish his purposes (eg, Gideon's army, the walls of Jericho, etc.).

But is it possible that SOMEONE in the Church made a miscalculation here and that it's POSSIBLE that Church leaders could be ... cover the ears of your little ones ... WRONG?

 

Well, of course the Church leaders could be wrong.  They absolutely could be wrong.  They've been wrong before.

But when they are wrong it is the place of God to set them in order.  If they are doing ANYTHING wrong today, they will eventually be set in order.  Setting in order is ALWAYS top down.

There is an order to God's kingdom.

Unless I suppose people like steadying arks....yeah, that always works out well.

[Mystery Meat]

I thought this was good.

 

http://meko-media.com/2014/06/13/my-response-to-ordain-women/

[Hestia]

Since the Church is an International church, it would be difficult for it to be a PAC to all people. But if you would prefer the laws of your land to reflect as close as possible to the Gospel, then being a US Progressive wouldn't be my choice, no matter the love toward Brother Harry Reid. All this ordain women, same-sex marriage, etc. cast at Church Leadership is just a variation on the theme called the Equal Rights Amendment soundly rejected by Pres. Spencer W. Kimball. Kelly & Dehlin apparently aren't aware of it.

 

Let's not bring politics into this.

[Duncan]

Seventy times seven. -- Matthew 18:22

 

 

you only forgive if they repent, is John repented? that's the question that is not up to us to answer

[smac97]

If I may butt in.....I have a different take.  Evidently KK has said she will resign. That in addition to her leaving the country would seem to put her in compliance in some important respects even though she isn't doing it for that purpose.

May I ask where this information came from? I haven't seen anything online.  And IIRC, Kate Kelly told the Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday that she would never resign. EDIT TO ADD: The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that "Ordain Women founder Kate Kelly, said Saturday her disciplinary council remains scheduled for June 22."

On a related note, I think we should a posting on the OW website today presents details about scheduled "vigils" on the night of June 22 (it would be odd for the OW group to post this if Kate Kelly is resigning, though there could be some miscommunication amongst them).  Some highlights:

"Choose a location. Because this is a religious vigil, your local LDS chapel would be appropriate. Gather on the sidewalk near church grounds to remain on public property. You may also ask your local bishop/building coordinator IN ADVANCE to use the chapel lawn or to use the foyer in the event of rain."

I appreciate the instruction for people to remain "on public property," thereby respecting the Church's basic property rights. Would that the OW folks had done the same during General Conference.

"Invite all those who are comfortable to take turns sharing their refusal to be silenced in short sentences, such as: 'For my daughters, I will not be silent;' 'As a daughter of God, I will not be silent;' 'In honor of my foremothers who courageously walked across the plains, I will not be silent;' 'For my sisters who have no voice in the church, I will not be silent;' etc."

Hmm.  This is kinda weird.  The OW group is telling people attending a vigil what to say.  And what they they are telling the people to say is directed at the Church.  And what the people are supposed to say is defiant.

 

This kinda sorta sounds protest-ish.

 

In another post on the OW group from June 11, we have a few more bits:

“Kate Kelly has never wavered in her testimony of the gospel and is in no way guilty of apostasy. Her faith is beyond question. As a leader of Ordain Women, Kelly, like the organization, embraces the promise of continuing revelation as outlined in the Ninth Article of Faith. At every turn, our actions have been respectful and dignified and aimed at communicating with our Church leaders.”

So defying the Church's instructions to not enter Temple Square was "respectful and dignified," was it?

Notifying the media of their intention to defy those instructions was "respectful and dignified?"

Actually trespassing and protesting on sacred ground was "respectful and dignified?"

Deliberately scheduling this trespass/protest to conflict with and distract from a sacred convocation was "respectful and dignified?"

Publicly demanding ordination to the priesthood and telling the Brethren that "nothing less will suffice" is "respectful and dignified?"

 

Kate Kelly telling The New York Times that her bishop's actions are "cowardly and unchristlike" "respectful and dignified?"

We report, you decide!

Here's another excerpt:

Is this a protest?

No. It is a plea for our voices to be heard. We will not protest. We want to support Kate and each other and continue to build our faith together.

 

In keeping with the reverent nature of the event, organizers have asked participants to abide by the following guidelines:

 

No anti-church diatribes

 

No signs or banners

 

I am curious about how "a plea for our voices to be heard" cannot also be a "protest."  The OW group is organizing and coordinating planned events, dictating the messages, having those messages be directed at the Church and expressing defiance ("I will not be silent").  That all sounds rather protest-ish.

 

How often do we see Latter-day Saints organizing "vigils" directed at the LDS Church which must include instructions such as "no anti-church diatribes?"  What is the nature of an event that requires such an instruction?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 14, 2014 by smac97

[mormonnewb]

you only forgive if they repent, is John repented? that's the question that is not up to us to answer

Really? Where does Christ say that we only forgive those who first repent? Were the Roman centurions repentant when Christ asked HF for their forgiveness while on the cross?

Edited June 14, 2014 by mormonnewb

[MorningStar]

Pretty ridiculous to say that an LDS Chapel would be a great place for a vigil, but that you should be sure to stand on public property.    The more these women carry on, the more they annoy me. 

[why me]

But is it possible that SOMEONE in the Church made a miscalculation here and that it's POSSIBLE that Church leaders could be ... cover the ears of your little ones ... WRONG?

I think that john's problem can be put in a nutshell. When Greg wrote his piece about mormonstories and it was squashed because of interference by a church leader at john's request and john came back to church activity shortly after - Then, john became a critic of the church again. This probably put the church leader in a place where he would not want to be. You go to bat for someone by having the piece about mormonstores squashed and see john return to activity but suddenly do an about face and become a critic again. What to do with john? What should be done if he continues to lead people out of the church? If one no longer believes in it and advocates such disbelief, what whould be done?

[why me]

Really? Where does Christ say that we only forgive those who first repent? Were the Roman centurions repentant when Christ asked HF for their forgiveness while on the cross?

However, it has been pointed out that the early church did practice disfellowshipping. Also, what happened to the couple who cheated on their tithing? They were struck dead. Why didn't god spare their lives? Or why were they not given a right to repent by god? Where was the forgiveness? It seems that after christ ascended into heaven, his church had some strict rules to follow at his request. Unless of course, the early church was already in apostacy at the time of peter, james and paul.

Edited June 14, 2014 by why me

[JLHPROF]

Really? Where does Christ say that we only forgive those who first repent? Were the Roman centurions repentant when Christ asked HF for their forgiveness while on the cross?

 

We are also told that:

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"  Heb 10:26

 

Now, I'm not saying that it applies to either of these people.  But not all people are to be forgiven, and last I checked:

 

"Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of Melchizedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth;

And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church." D&C 107:71-72

[mormonnewb]

May I ask where this information came from? I haven't seen anything online. And IIRC, Kate Kelly told the Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday that she would never resign.

On a related note, I think we should a posting on the OW website today presents details about scheduled "vigils" on the night of June 22. Some highlights:

"Choose a location. Because this is a religious vigil, your local LDS chapel would be appropriate. Gather on the sidewalk near church grounds to remain on public property. You may also ask your local bishop/building coordinator IN ADVANCE to use the chapel lawn or to use the foyer in the event of rain."

I appreciate the instruction for people to remain "on public property," thereby respecting the Church's basic property rights. Would that the OW folks had done the same during General Conference.

"Invite all those who are comfortable to take turns sharing their refusal to be silenced in short sentences, such as: 'For my daughters, I will not be silent;' 'As a daughter of God, I will not be silent;' 'In honor of my foremothers who courageously walked across the plains, I will not be silent;' 'For my sisters who have no voice in the church, I will not be silent;' etc."

Hmm. This is kinda weird. The OW group is telling people attending a vigil what to say. And what they they are telling the people to say is directed at the Church. And what the people are supposed to say is defiant.

This kinda sorta sounds protest-ish.

In another post on the OW group from June 11, we have a few more bits:

“Kate Kelly has never wavered in her testimony of the gospel and is in no way guilty of apostasy. Her faith is beyond question. As a leader of Ordain Women, Kelly, like the organization, embraces the promise of continuing revelation as outlined in the Ninth Article of Faith. At every turn, our actions have been respectful and dignified and aimed at communicating with our Church leaders.”

So defying the Church's instructions to not enter Temple Square was "respectful and dignified," was it?

Notifying the media of their intention to defy those instructions was "respectful and dignified?"

Actually trespassing and protesting on sacred ground was "respectful and dignified?"

Deliberately scheduling this trespass/protest to conflict with and distract from a sacred convocation was "respectful and dignified?"

Publicly demanding ordination to the priesthood and telling the Brethren that "nothing less will suffice" is "respectful and dignified?"

Kate Kelly telling The New York Times that her bishop's actions are "cowardly and unchristlike" "respectful and dignified?"

We report, you decide!

Here's another excerpt:

Is this a protest?

No. It is a plea for our voices to be heard. We will not protest. We want to support Kate and each other and continue to build our faith together.

In keeping with the reverent nature of the event, organizers have asked participants to abide by the following guidelines:

No anti-church diatribes

No signs or banners

I am curious about how "a plea for our voices to be heard" cannot also be a "protest." The OW group is organizing and coordinating planned events, dictating the messages, having those messages be directed at the Church and expressing defiance ("I will not be silent"). That all sounds rather protest-ish.

How often do we see Latter-day Saints organizing "vigils" directed at the LDS Church which must include instructions such as "no anti-church diatribes?" What is the nature of an event that requires such an instruction?

Thanks,

-Smac

How about this? If I can convince KK to pay a $75 fine, can we PLEASE get past this whole trespassing offense?

I could be wrong, but wasn't JS technically trespassing on the Hill Culmorah when he found the plates? Once again, I could be wrong. Perhaps the Smith family owned that land as well. But if not, I strongly suspect that HF has forgiven that trespass. Perhaps, we could let this one slide as well.

Edited June 14, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Duncan]

Really? Where does Christ say that we only forgive those who first repent? Were the Roman centurions repentant when Christ asked HF for their forgiveness while on the cross?

 

were they sinning? or just doing their jobs

 

i'm saying this because I HT a lady now who is married to a total letch of a fella who abuses her, the police, and everyone else is involved. He beats her, abuses her emotionally and she says "I married him so this is what I signed up for" like really? all this garbage? he abuses her, he says he'll change, she takes him back it happens again, cops are called, restraining order the whole thing, jail time and this cycle has been going on now for at least 10 years. if he was really repented, she wouldn't be having me and others help her move into a safe house, because of him. Do you think Christ wants all of that? Forgiving others can be taken to the extreme and totally throwing out other principles as well