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

[cdowis]

Just curious how "on the wrong side of history" is related to the keys and authority of the priesthood leaders to make decisions on what is and is not moral and necessary.  And who would be the one to make that judgement?  Do you have any suggestions for a candidate. 

 

Perhaps the editorial page of the newspapers should be required reading, along with the scriptures in church counsel meetings. 

 

You have an interesting view on how the church should be run, and I think you should give us more details on how that would work.

Edited June 15, 2014 by cdowis

[Calm]

Newb, ward resources being referred to are ward or RS contact lists of members. They are suggesting using these to make announcements to solicit others to join the discussion groups.

See the intro to the discussions PDF.

My understanding is that anything that has been created using ward information is off bounds for personal usages. In the past people have been brought up on discipline iirc for using ward lists for phone solicitations for sales for example.

By telling others to use such resources even if they don't personally use them and even if people know better than to do it so it doesn't actually occur, it is still wrong to attempt to get others to do something wrong.

[mormonnewb]

Shouting out to the brethren that they are wrong is exceeding your calling and authority -- you are TOUCHING the sacred object. Privately expressing your personal opinion among close associates is merely inadvisable.

But I leave that up as something between you and the Lord, and let Him explain it to you.

So you think Uzzah would have been killed had he yelled out, "Careful! The ark is tipping over"'? That it would only be okay if he mumbled it under his breath so the men who could actually correct it couldn't hear him? Or would that be inadvisable too?

[mormonnewb]

Newb, ward resources being referred to are ward or RS contact lists of members. They are suggesting using these to make announcements to solicit others to join the discussion groups.

See the intro to the discussions PDF.

My understanding is that anything that has been created using ward information is off bounds for personal usages. In the past people have been brought up on discipline iirc for using ward lists for phone solicitations for sales for example.

By telling others to use such resources even if they don't personally use them and even if people know better than to do it so it doesn't actually occur, it is still wrong to attempt to get others to do something wrong.

Had they been told not to do that and defied that directive anyway?

I can imagine that members think they can use these lists all the time for Mary Kay, Amway, etc. I suppose that when caught, they are not excommunicated but just told not to do that anymore.

I imagine that from time to time, someone ignores this directive and then they deserve what they get. Is this the case that we're talking about with Sister Kelly?

[Calm]

My memory of the story was that while he assumed the ark was going to fall and touch the ground, this didnt actually happen.

So a closer analogy would be if he had told the priests carrying it that they were going to fail in their duties by letting it touch the ground while they assured him that this would not happen on their watch but still he continued to protest it would fall to the point of attracting a crowd where some joined in at shouting at the priests in warning as well as the crowd getting in the way of the ark and slowing down its progress, even agitating the oxen increasing the chance of the mishap occurring he was claiming he was attempting to prevent even after the priests warned him of the possible consequences of his causing the commotion. And then the priests giving him a warning he would lose his place in the procession if he continued in his efforts that were disrupting it....

[carbon dioxide]

For example, it is NOT ark steadying to notice that the Church's current stand on SSM leaves us on the wrong side of history and to shout out to the Brethren, "Watch out!" What would be ark steadying would be to take matters in my own hand and begin sealing gay couples in the temple. See the difference?

I don't know about you but if there is a choice between being called on the "wrong side of history" or the "wrong side of the Lord" I will choose the "wrong side of history".   Let those who claim the LDS Church was on the "wrong side of history" in terms of gay marriage shout as long and as hard as they want in their resurrected state in the a lower kingdom. 

[Calm]

Had they been told not to do that and defied that directive anyway?

I can imagine that members think they can use these lists all the time for Mary Kay, Amway, etc.

It is relatively common knowledge one is not to use them though new converts may not know I suppose especially if in their area there is high compliance. Warnings are often placed in directories themselves. Last one I heard of in one of my wards that was even close was when a nonmember walked into our church building and used the directory next to the phone to cold call members. The directory was promptly removed (which was a real pain) and members reminded just in case anyone got ideas. The policy about directories and internet is in the handbook online.

I find it extremely unlikely that not one of the persons involved in the process of developing the lessons was not aware of the restriction or could not have at least come up with the common sense approach to clear it with ward leaders before publishing it. Kate Kelly is a lawyer, I expect more of her then just common sense in the way of caution.

And the instructions are still in PDF.

Given that they justified their trespass after being told not to enter Temple Square on the grounds they had the right to be there as members, perhaps they see usage as justified with the same reasoning. It wasn't valid for the trespass, it isn't valid for this use either.

Edited June 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

My memory of the story was that while he assumed the ark was going to fall and touch the ground, this didnt actually happen.

So a closer analogy would be if he had told the priests carrying it that they were going to fail in their duties by letting it touch the ground while they assured him that this would not happen on their watch but still he continued to protest it would fall to the point of attracting a crowd where some joined in at shouting at the priests in warning as well as the crowd getting in the way of the ark and slowing down its progress, even agitating the oxen increasing the chance of the mishap occurring he was claiming he was attempting to prevent even after the priests warned him of the possible consequences of his causing the commotion. And then the priests giving him a warning he would lose his place in the procession if he continued in his efforts that were disrupting it....

6And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. 7And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God. 2 Samuel 6-7

It appears that Uzzah was not smote for warning about the ark but rather reaching out his hand and touching it.

Edited June 15, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

It is relatively common knowledge one is not to use them though new converts may not know I suppose especially if in their area there is high compliance. Warnings are often placed in directories themselves. Last one I heard of in one of my wards that was even close was when a nonmember walked into our church building and used the directory next to the phone to cold call members. The directory was promptly removed (which was a real pain) and members reminded just in case anyone got ideas. The policy about directories and internet is in the handbook online.

I find it extremely unlikely that not one of the persons involved in the process of developing the lessons was not aware of the restriction or could not have at least come up with the common sense approach to clear it with ward leaders before publishing it. Kate Kelly is a lawyer, I expect more of her then just common sense in the way of caution.

And the instructions are still in PDF.

Given that they justified their trespass after being told not to enter Temple Square on the grounds they had the right to be there as members, perhaps they see usage as justified with the same reasoning. It wasn't valid for the trespass, it isn't valid for this use either.

Would you consider these offenses, in and of themselves, as excommunicable offenses?

[Calm]

I wasn't repeating the story, but pointing out what a better analogy would be.

Note that he was wrong, the ark did not fall. And there is no indication he was the one to save it...and if he was zapped when he touched it, he wouldn't have had the chance anyway.

[mormonnewb]

I don't know about you but if there is a choice between being called on the "wrong side of history" or the "wrong side of the Lord" I will choose the "wrong side of history". Let those who claim the LDS Church was on the "wrong side of history" in terms of gay marriage shout as long and as hard as they want in their resurrected state in the a lower kingdom.

I'll be happy to join my brothers and sisters who were shouting about lifting the priesthood ban for blacks in the 60s and 70s.

[Calm]

Would you consider these offenses, in and of themselves, as excommunicable offenses?

First off she hasn't been excommunicated. We have no way of knowing what her leaders intend if she continues to refuse to listen to instructions.

Second, it would depend on whether one continued in defiance of an instruction to stop doing so.

To me it is not the acts themselves that are problematic, but the choice to continue after repeated requests to stop.

I have used the example of a smoker who smokes perhaps daily while sincerely attempting to quit still being a member in full fellowship while someone who chose to smoke one cigarette or drink one glass of wine in order to prove they don't feel the need to listen to their church leaders and while they may never again sin in breaking the WoW covenant, yet continue in pride that they know better than their leader and do not repent of that one action...that person is much more likely at risk for spiritual death than the smoker.

Edited June 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[rpn]

I wouldn't consider directory misuse disciplinary material unless the harm was great like it is in this case or it is repeated.   The OW discussions tell members to defy their stewardships (which is how they get a directory list or the members personal info) and to use it for purposes designed to undermine and correct the official doctrine.   Wrapped like it is in this case with efforts to educate and draw more women into history (that isn't settled history by a long shot --- though it is seen that way by christian denominations the ordain women), it is it intolerable. 

[Mystery Meat]

Alas, it seems Gospel Fundamentals is not very well taught or understood.

[carbon dioxide]

I'll be happy to join my brothers and sisters who were shouting about lifting the priesthood ban for blacks in the 60s and 70s.

I would agree but the lifting of the ban was not about being the right or wrong side of history.  It was about doing what God wanted to do.  The way I view Lehi's dream is that those in the great and spacious building probably are shouting at those who holding to the iron rod and saying "You guys are on the wrong side of history".  Some let go of the rod in shame and wander away.  The action that LDS should be focused on is the right or wrong side of God.  I am sure many in Noah day could have said Noah was on the wrong side of history.  When the floods came Noah could have responded "Now who was on the wrong side of history?  I hear only silence."

[Mystery Meat]

Fun quotes:

 

Elder George A. Smith (not the prophet):

 

 

 

“There was a prevalent spirit all through the early history of the Church which prompted the Elders to suppose that they knew more than the Prophet. Elders would tell you the Prophet was going wrong. Men who thought they knew all about this work, some of them thirty or forty years before the Lord revealed it, tried to ‘steady the ark.’ The Church was constantly afflicted with such a class of men.”

 

Joseph Smith (yes that Joseph Smith):

 

 

 

There are some who are obedient, yet men cannot steady the ark—my arm cannot do it—God must steady it. 

 

Brigham Young:

 

 

 

Let the Kingdom alone, the Lord steadies the ark; and if it does jostle, and appear to need steadying, if the way is a little sideling sometimes, and to all appearance threatens its overthrow, be careful how you stretch forth your hand to steady it; let us not be too officious in meddling with that which does not concern us; let it alone, it is the Lord's work.

You may examine from the beginning to this day, and continue to watch in the future, and where you find a man who wishes to steady the ark of God, without being called to do so, you will find a dark spot in him. The man full of light and intelligence discerns that God steadies his own ark, dictates his own affairs, guides his people, controls his kingdom, governs nations, and holds the hearts of all living in his hands, and turns them hither and thither at his pleasure, not infringing upon their agency. There is not the least danger of disagreeing with persons enjoying the Holy Spirit.

 

David O. McKay:

 

 

 

It is a little dangerous for us to go out of our own sphere and try unauthoritatively to direct the efforts of a brother. You remember the case of Uzza who stretched forth his hand to steady the ark. (See I Chron. 13:7-10.) He seemed justified, when the oxen stumbled, in putting forth his hand to steady that symbol of the covenant. We today think his punishment was very severe. Be that as it may, the incident conveys a lesson of life. Let us look around us and see how quickly men who attempt unauthoritatively to steady the ark die spiritually. Their souls become embittered, their minds distorted, their judgments faulty, and their spirits depressed. Such is the pitiable condition of men who, neglecting their own responsibilities spend their time in finding fault with others.

 

Neil A. Maxwell (my favorite):

 

 

 

Brigham Young, who stayed the course, knew the fatigue of leadership. He counseled those less secure about the outcome, "It is the Lord's work. I know enough to let the kingdom alone, and do my duty. It carries me, I do not carry the kingdom. I sail in the old ship Zion, and it bears me safely above the raging elements." In our own time, the late Elder LeGrand Richards was heard by some of us to declare that he did not fret about the Church because it is the Lord's church: "I let Him worry about it!"

When we are meek and "settled" in our hearts (Luke 21:14), we know that the Lord watches over His church, filled as it is with imperfect leaders and people. To be sure, instructive feedback is needed at all levels, just as it is needed in healthy marriages and families. Information and inspiration are likewise needed at all levels. Having so said, it is the Lord's church, and those who are too eager to steady it and too quick to focus upon a single issue or concern will fail to comprehend the important undergirding function of meekness that includes trust in the Lord.

Anxious Uzzah, who steadied the ark in ancient Israel, was smitten for his actions. (2 Samuel 6:6; 1 Chronicles 13:9.) Some may reason that he was only trying—though mistakenly—to help out. But given the numerous times the Lord had saved and spared Israel, including the high dramas of the Red Sea and of the manna from heaven, surely He knew how to keep the ark in balance! Was Uzzah steadying the ark out of sincere but naive concern? Perhaps. But he would also have been carefully instructed as to his duties, which should have check-reigned his eagerness. Meekness is neither alarmist nor shoulder-shrugging unconcern. It involves shoulder-squaring self-discipline, and what follows is the special composure that meekness brings.

Besides, what Uzzah did could have become a pattern, at a time when there was already too much second guessing of Moses. What if a pattern had developed in the modern-day church wherein, like James Covill, the Saints could say, in effect, "I'll go, dear Lord, but I'll go where I want to go"? This lesson is an old one, as in Jonah's trying to go to Tarshish instead of Nineveh, to which he had been called.

At issue is our obedience to the Lord. Has he not said, "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams"? (1 Samuel 15:22.) Obedience is what is needed, because through obedience we can grow and become more like Him. Ancient Israel, blessed with the miracle of manna, went contrary to instructions, leaving it overnight against the fear that God would not provide on the morrow—and "it bred worms, and stank." (Exodus 16:20.) The Lord can provide for His people. The Yokemaster is able to do His work, and those of us yoked to His purpose must not forget that reality.

If we trust the Lord, perform our duties, and keep the commandments, the Lord—so far as the course of His Church is concerned—is able to do His work and to bring to pass that which has been planned from "the foundation of the world," back beyond time.  

[mfbukowski]

It is clear that you are not interested in having a good faith discussion. So I will withdraw from further efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Seems to be a lot of that going around....

[Mystery Meat]

I'll be happy to join my brothers and sisters who were shouting about lifting the priesthood ban for blacks in the 60s and 70s.

 

And yet if the Lord felt the need he could have appeared to Brigham Young and personally told him he was wrong.

[JAHS]

I'll be happy to join my brothers and sisters who were shouting about lifting the priesthood ban for blacks in the 60s and 70s.

 

Everyone should read "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood 2005" by his son Edward L. Kimball

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=7885&linkURL=47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf

 

I especially like the following statement from the document:

"He(Spencer W. Kimball) reacted especially negatively to militant protests against the Church and coercive methods, particularly when those protesting had themselves no interest in becoming priesthood holders. Spencer believed that external pressures made revelation even less likely to come."

[Mystery Meat]

 

Everyone should read "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood 2005" by his son Edward L. Kimball

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=7885&linkURL=47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf

 

I especially like the following statement from the document:

"He(Spencer W. Kimball) reacted especially negatively to militant protests against the Church and coercive methods, particularly when those protesting had themselves no interest in becoming priesthood holders. Spencer believed that external pressures made revelation even less likely to come."

 

 

It is worth noting that there were more than a few amazingly humble men of African descent who waited for the Lord to reveal without instigating vigils, protests, marches, and other political pressure campaigns. They trusted the Lord. They were not disappointed.

[JLHPROF]

I'll be happy to join my brothers and sisters who were shouting about lifting the priesthood ban for blacks in the 60s and 70s.

So tired of this comparison. The priesthood ban and SSM are not equivalents. SSM has been revealed as a sinful act, not a restricted class. Unless God reveals by revelation that there is no sin in homosexual relations SSM is an irrelevant issue. Legitimizing the marriages is pointless if the relation is a sin.

The priesthood ban did not involve allowing sinful acts by those seeking change.

[mormonnewb]

It is worth noting that there were more than a few amazingly humble men of African descent who waited for the Lord to reveal without instigating vigils, protests, marches, and other political pressure campaigns. They trusted the Lord. They were not disappointed.

I hope that was a good trade off for the MILLIONS of African Americans who will never even consider joining our Church.

[mormonnewb]

So tired of this comparison. The priesthood ban and SSM are not equivalents. SSM has been revealed as a sinful act, not a restricted class. Unless God reveals by revelation that there is no sin in homosexual relations SSM is an irrelevant issue. Legitimizing the marriages is pointless if the relation is a sin.

The priesthood ban did not involve allowing sinful acts by those seeking change.

I don't think we're comparing the propriety of the Church's policies in these cases, but rather the appropriate course of action for saints who believe the Church's policy is in error.

[Mystery Meat]

I hope that was a good trade off for the MILLIONS of African Americans who will never even consider joining our Church.

 

I suppose you will have to ask the Lord. He could have stopped the practice from ever happening had he decided to. Which poses the question: why didn't He?

Edited June 15, 2014 by lvjd66

[Sleeper Cell]

I forgot we were talking about sacred "property rights." I stand corrected.

In tht vein, is trespass is now the sin next to murder? I hope so because I'm more than willing to give us trespass if I can go back to the previous "sin next to murder"?

 

In other words, you and those with whom you agree have rights.  Those with whom you disagree have  “rights.”  There is something a tad inconsistent about protesting for your own rights while showing contempt for the rights of others.    

 

What about the rights of the non-protesters to enjoy the serenity of their own church’s sacred space -- an experience that many consider an important  part of their worship experience?  OW could have easily held their protest on the sidewalk or virtually anywhere else in the city, but they chose to trespass on a half acre of sacred ground during a religious gathering.

 

From your previous post:

 

 

 I go back to Gandhi -- "First, they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win." An insurgency is least dangerous when you can ignore it. Every escalation in you battle against them brings them closer to victory.

 

If you really believe this, why do you object to KK and Dehlen being called before church disciplinary councils?  According to you, this would bring their causes (with which you sympathize) closer to victory.  

 

Your Gandhi quote  reminds me that deliberately trying  to provoke a reaction (preferably an overreaction) from the “establishment” is a classic protest tactic. (As if any reaction wouldn’t be portrayed as an “overreaction.”)  OW’s  trespass did not provoke a dc, so OW proclaimed they were going to write a series of 6 OW missionary lessons to present to members of their wards, and attempt to use ward lists and church facilities to proselyte  for their cause.  And if this didn’t  provoke a dc, OW would, in all probability, keep on escalating until they did.  

 

Furthermore, the coverage has galvanized the Dehlinites and OW supporters. My wife just told me that there were 3 new OW profiles posted in the last HOUR. There is nothing like a good martyr story to spur on the faithful.

.

And another synthetic martyr is born.