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

[ERayR]

Can a woman initiate an excommunication?

 

Interestingly Kelly is going to be excommunicated by her former Bishop. But to excommunicate a man you need a higher authority. 

 

You must have missed the part about different roles.

[bluebell]

Does the LDS Church really believe these people are a threat? Why not just ignore them?

If the church believes these people are leading others into apostasy, they have a duty to protect the rest of the flock.

[jkwilliams]

Out here in Sodom and Gomorrah they are no real threat. But I don't know many organizations that take kindly to people who actively work against them.

 

FWIW, I never thought either of them were actively working against the church. A lot of ex-Mormons hate John Dehlin precisely because he didn't work against the church.

[ERayR]

It's true. You need a Stake President and high council to excommunicate a priesthood holder. Women can be excommunicated by bishops. 

 

I don't think you can honestly say women have equal authority in the church as men. You can argue that it's God's will, if you like. 

 

It is about who has primary leadership roles over the member.  The stake president is the primary leader over the priesthood of the stake.

[ksfisher]

It's true. You need a Stake President and high council to excommunicate a priesthood holder. Women can be excommunicated by bishops. 

 

I don't think you can honestly say women have equal authority in the church as men. You can argue that it's God's will, if you like.

The stake presidency and high council are needed if it is a Melchizedek priesthood holder and there is a possibility of excommunication. If it's an Aaronic priesthood holder or the sin was such that excommunication was not a possibility then it would be in the hands of the bishop.

[thesometimesaint]

I assume you understood my question and chose to misread it. 

 

It is the role of the Bishops to "start" the official process of Church Discipline. All the Bishops in this Church are men. If at some future date women are chosen to be Bishops then yes women will start the official process. It is not a matter of sex. Just of the roles we play in the Church. Do you really believe our Mother-in-Heaven has no authority?

[ksfisher]

Does the LDS Church really believe these people are a threat? Why not just ignore them?

Because they are actively leading people away from the church.

[Duncan]

The stake presidency and high council are needed if it is a Melchizedek priesthood holder and there is a possibility of excommunication. If it's an Aaronic priesthood holder or the sin was such that excommunication was not a possibility then it would be in the hands of the bishop.

 

In our stake a 17 yr old priest was excommunicated by the stake 14 years ago, but that was very highly unusual. I know a Bishop in the stake as well that exed his daughter who was living out of province and she came back for a vacation, again extremely unusual and IMO extremely dubious that it should have happened

[ERayR]

Does the LDS Church really believe these people are a threat? Why not just ignore them?

 

They were basically ignored for some years but like a horsefly or a mosquito they just kept buzzing and biting in larger and larger circles until someone picked up a fly swatter.

[rockpond]

Story here. 

 

I'm not surprised by the church's actions. 

 

I'm surprised.  It will likely marginalize and galvanize quite a few people at a time when the church's growth rate is at a 40 year low.  Not that growth rate should factor into decisions about disciplinary action.  But I don't see this ending well for the Church.

[Thinking]

Post hoc fallacy.

 

Hardly. I was very careful in my wording. I used precede instead of cause.

[ERayR]

FWIW, I never thought either of them were actively working against the church. A lot of ex-Mormons hate John Dehlin precisely because he didn't work against the church.

 

It is a matter of perception.  it depends on how one views such actions.

[smac97]

What are you talking about?  

 

Kelly speaks of living "authentically."  Nowhere does she claim that her beliefs "[are] correct in all respects."

I know she did not "claim" that. Everyone has to rein in their expression of personal views in certain venues. To claim that restraining Kate Kelly from speaking out against the Church, from publicly demanding the priesthood and saying "nothing less will suffice," from trespassing/protesting on sacred property amounts to requiring her to "live inauthentically," is malarky.

I love how you put words in these women's mouths.

I don't think I have done that. Or if I have, I haven't done it much.

You seem to do it in every post you make about OW.

No, I don't.

OW women thinks the Church has a disease because it speaks of "symptoms" of patriarchy and the treatment of women.

"Symptom" was their word, not mine. And I didn't invent the clearly negative connotations permeating the "Six Discussions" written by the OW group. Be serious, dude. Is a lesson outlining the "symptoms patriarchy" supposed to be a positive depiction of the Church?

I didn't create the hostile tone. I found fault with it.

And what has Kelly been asking -- rightly or wrongly -- Church leadership to do over the past months?

She hasn't been "asking." She has been demanding that the priesthood be given to women, and that "nothing less will suffice."

She has been protesting against the Church. She has trespassed onto sacred ground and protested there, in direct defiance of the Church's instructions, of the Church's property rights, and of the laws of the land.

She's been running a protracted adversarial PR campaign against her own Church.

She has aligned herself with an excommunicated apostate.

She has done a lot of stuff I find very problematic.

She has asked them to "assess what [they] believe/think and the basis for [those] beliefs/thoughts ... [keeping themselves] open to the possibility that [their] beliefs/thoughts may be in error one way or another."

Oh, get real. Nobody would have objected to such a modest request. You're just whitewashing the things which Kate Kelly and the OW group has done which many Latter-day Saints have found offensive and inappropriate.

I love how you apply one standard to Kelly and another to the Brethren who are, wonderful men but fallible human beings.

I've done no such thing.

If you don't ask the Brethren to do the same thing you are asking of both Kelly and the rest of us, you are tacitly admitting that you think the Bretheren are infallible and in no need of periodically "assess what [they] believe" being "open to the possibility that [their beliefs/thoughts may be in error one way or another."

I am "tacitly admitting" to infallibility? This, coming from you, who just faulted me for supposedly putting words in the the mouths of Kate Kelly and the OW group?

Ironic, no?

But to your point: No, I am not making any claim of infallibility, tacit or otherwise. I think the Brethren should periodically "assess what [they] believe" being "open to the possibility that [their beliefs/thoughts may be in error one way or another."  I dispute, however, that it is the province of self-selected agitators like Kate Kelly to publicly call out the Brethren, to orchestrate adversarial PR campaings against them and the Church, to declare doctrine and demand that they hop to and conform to her declaration ("nothing less will suffice," remember?), to defy the Church and trespass and protest on its sacred ground during a sacred convocation, and so on.

Recall that President Uchtdorf has made it clear mistakes have been made in the past and I have no doubt they continue today.

And it is the province of Kate Kelly to identify those mistakes? And to publicly demand that the Church fix those mistakes by taking actions she deems, in her estimation, to be acceptable? And to align with an excommunicated apostate? And to invite that apostate to speak at an event attending principally by Latter-day Saints and deliberately scheduled to conflict with and distract from a sacred convocation? And to defy the Church and trespass and protest on its sacred ground during a sacred convocation (also deliberately scheduled to conflict with and distract from a sacred convocation?

Somehow, I don't think that Pres. Uchtdorf had such behaviors in mind when he made his remarks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Hardly. I was very careful in my wording. I used precede instead of cause.

It was a wink-wink, nudge-nudge sort of insinuation.

 

If that's not what it was, I hardly see any point to it.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

I'm surprised.  It will likely marginalize and galvanize quite a few people at a time when the church's growth rate is at a 40 year low.  Not that growth rate should factor into decisions about disciplinary action.  But I don't see this ending well for the Church.

 

I wonder how much "pull" though Dehlin and Kelly have with people who aren't members, would they even know who they are? growth comes from people who aren't members. I wonder how this will affect Dehlin's idea to have some kind of counselling business in Utah

Edited June 11, 2014 by Duncan

[thesometimesaint]

FWIW, I never thought either of them were actively working against the church. A lot of ex-Mormons hate John Dehlin precisely because he didn't work against the church.

 

Sure there were/are more vocal ones, but I don't see a qualitative difference between the two, just a quantitative one.

[thesometimesaint]

I know she did not "claim" that. Everyone has to rein in their expression of personal views in certain venues. To claim that restraining Kate Kelly from speaking out against the Church, from publicly demanding the priesthood and saying "nothing less will suffice," from trespassing/protesting on sacred property amounts to requiring her to "live inauthentically," is malarky.

I don't think I have done that. Or if I have, I haven't done it much.

No, I don't.

"Symptom" was their word, not mine. And I didn't invent the clearly negative connotations permeating the "Six Discussions" written by the OW group. Be serious, dude. Is a lesson outlining the "symptoms patriarchy" supposed to be a positive depiction of the Church?

I didn't create the hostile tone. I found fault with it.

She hasn't been "asking." She has been demanding that the priesthood be given to women, and that "nothing less will suffice."

She has been protesting against the Church. She has trespassed onto sacred ground and protested there, in direct defiance of the Church's instructions, of the Church's property rights, and of the laws of the land.

She's been running a protracted adversarial PR campaign against her own Church.

She has aligned herself with an excommunicated apostate.

She has done a lot of stuff I find very problematic.

Oh, get real. Nobody would have objected to such a modest request. You're just whitewashing the things which Kate Kelly and the OW group has done which many Latter-day Saints have found offensive and inappropriate.

I've done no such thing.

I am "tacitly admitting" to infallibility? This, coming from you, who just faulted me for supposedly putting words in the the mouths of Kate Kelly and the OW group?

Ironic, no?

But to your point: No, I am not making any claim of infallibility, tacit or otherwise. I think the Brethren should periodically "assess what [they] believe" being "open to the possibility that [their beliefs/thoughts may be in error one way or another."  I dispute, however, that it is the province of self-selected agitators like Kate Kelly to publicly call out the Brethren, to orchestrate adversarial PR campaings against them and the Church, to declare doctrine and demand that they hop to and conform to her declaration ("nothing less will suffice," remember?), to defy the Church and trespass and protest on its sacred ground during a sacred convocation, and so on.

And it is the province of Kate Kelly to identify those mistakes? And to publicly demand that the Church fix those mistakes by taking actions she deems, in her estimation, to be acceptable? And to align with an excommunicated apostate? And to invite that apostate to speak at an event attending principally by Latter-day Saints and deliberately scheduled to conflict with and distract from a sacred convocation? And to defy the Church and trespass and protest on its sacred ground during a sacred convocation (also deliberately scheduled to conflict with and distract from a sacred convocation?

Somehow, I don't think that Pres. Uchtdorf had such behaviors in mind when he made his remarks.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Agreed.

[Calm]

It was a wink-wink, nudge-nudge sort of insinuation.

If that's not what it was, I hardly see any purpose in it.

And Kelly is hoping her work will just happen to "precede" a change she is demanding as if she doesn't care if her work has any actual impact? Edited June 11, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

  ... I see several very prominent examples of women holding high office in both the OT and NT.  

 

There are prominent examples of women holding high office in the Church of Jesus Christ today, arguably comparable to what you are alluding to here.

 

I'm not certain how you are defining "high office," but women who hold general auxiliary leadership positions (RS, YW, Primary) and who are in Public Affairs roles arguably have more visibility, prominence, prestige, propensity to effect change in the Church, than the vast majority of priesthood holders will ever have.

[bluebell]

I'm surprised.  It will likely marginalize and galvanize quite a few people at a time when the church's growth rate is at a 40 year low.  Not that growth rate should factor into decisions about disciplinary action.  But I don't see this ending well for the Church.

 

If growth rate has no bearing on what is 'well' for the church, how do you not see it ending well?

[Tacenda]

Me too. Dehlin seems to me to have done much more in affecting people's actual faith, presenting the Church in negative ways but his audience was limited to those who sought him out it would seem.

However, Kelly's organization is presenting itself as actively proselyting LDS members and not just waiting for them to become aware and join on their own. And that first discussion is a doozy, I can't see anyone not already deeply committed to their faith in the Church as God's authorised organization seeing the benefit of being a member outweighing the costs (if they accept the costs as presented by OW which are not accurate imo). I can see a leader wanting to convey a message quickly that such things are not permissible in order to prevent a spread of copycat proselyting organisations, each with their own agenda to change the Church in the future. Shutting the proselyting down before it is even fully presented sends a clearer message that such are not permissible.

I agree, at least Kate Kelly still believed.  I have to admit, John Dehlin's Mormon Stories Podcasts are wonderful for the most part, but did kind of lead me into a stronger disbelief.  It linked to NOM and a few other questionable sights for those seeking to stay, but I don't think to actually help one believe.    

[cinepro]

If Church leaders had any sort of sense of humor, they would bend the rules and have Ty Mansfield excommunicate John Dehlin, and Sheri Dew do the honors for Sister Kelly.

[Scott Lloyd]

If growth rate has no bearing on what is 'well' for the church, how do you not see it ending well?

He probably has in mind the Church taking a PR hit in some quarters -- which shouldn't factor into decisions about disciplinary action either.

[ERayR]

I agree, at least Kate Kelly still believed.  I have to admit, John Dehlin's Mormon Stories Podcasts are wonderful for the most part, but did kind of lead me into a stronger disbelief.  It linked to NOM and a few other questionable sights for those seeking to stay, but I don't think to actually help one believe.    

 

I would question how much she believed in Priesthood order.

[juliann]

I am concerned about the collateral damage for women's progress in the church. I am also seeing the demeaning vocabulary commonly used for women being used to denounce Kelly (not necessarily here but in other places.)  I am very worried that all women are going to suffer at the hands of those priesthood holders who will see this as ammo to keep women "in their place."

 

I should add that I can see why the church sees a need for this...and I support their right to draw a defining boundary line.   I also think they are between a rock and hard place right now. 

Edited June 11, 2014 by juliann