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

[rockpond]

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

 

Growth decreases when members leave.  And real growth decreases when members go inactive.  Regarding non-members... bad PR could hurt.

[ksfisher]

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

The bishop may refer a matter to the stake if the bishop's court finds the matter "difficult."

[rockpond]

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

 

I didn't say that growth rate had no bearing on what is well for the church.

 

Although, I do think that growth rate (and "real growth") is an indicator for the well-being of the church.

[rockpond]

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

 

Correct -- on both counts.

[Duncan]

Growth decreases when members leave.  And real growth decreases when members go inactive.  Regarding non-members... bad PR could hurt.

 

true, but on the point of bad PR for the Church isn't like GM recalls or pink goo in your Mcdonalds

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say that growth rate had no bearing on what is well for the church.

 

Although, I do think that growth rate (and "real growth") is an indicator for the well-being of the church.

Arguably, "real growth" includes new members and reactivated ones whose faith and devotion is so solid that it will not be fazed by potentially unpopular actions the Church might have to take from time to time.

 

So if this thing becomes something of a sifting process, perhaps that will serve the cause of "real growth" in the long run.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

I didn't say that growth rate had no bearing on what is well for the church.

 

Although, I do think that growth rate (and "real growth") is an indicator for the well-being of the church.

 

I guess my question is 'if it is good for these members to either face excommunication or change their actions' (if it is God's will, for example, as the church obviously believes it is), then what does it matter what the fall-out is?

[smac97]

I am concerned about the collateral damage for women's progress in the church.

Actually, I was thinking that this could facilitate women's progress in the Church. Many of us have objected to Kate Kelly's tactics and rhetoric. I think a consensus is forming that such behaviors are not appropriate in the Church.

That said, the role of women in the Church is a much more openly discussed topic now than it was. I can't help but think that the Brethren, local leaders, and everyone else in the Church interested in this issue are now going to be able to stand back and say "Okay, that didn't go so well. Now that we've all learned some difficult lessons about how not to explore the role of women in the Church, why don't we come together in a spirit of unity and faith and discuss ways we can explore this issue?"

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."

Perhaps we can give the priesthood holders the benefit of the doubt instead of preemptively accusing them of causing women in the Church to "suffer" and using the OW group as "ammo" to "keep women 'in their place.'" Golly, talk about "demeaning vocabulary!" You are finding fault with priesthood holders for things they haven't even done yet.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

Interesting article and interesting thread.

 

It may be wrong to speculate about whether the disciplinary actions are correct, or will happen.  But at the same time, considering the very public actions of these two are we really surprised.  The word inevitable seems appropriate.  It was never going to end any other way.

 

As to whether this will affect Church Membership numbers or growth - in my opinion it won't make a dent.  Nothing the Church has ever done (since the announcement of polygamy in England in the 1850's) has ever cause a mass falling away.

But I also feel that we put WAY too much emphasis on membership numbers.  Whatever happened to the often taught idea that when we become popular it will be because we have lost our unique identity, or worse, apostatised.  Spreading the gospel is good, but the notion in the early days was always that the majority would reject it if we keep to our guns and don't allow them to keep their sins.

[mormonnewb]

From all of the uproar I'm seeing on the Internet, this could be a very interesting time for our Church.  To my great surprise, the OW faithful and "Dehlinites" might not go quietly into that good night.  And with the power of the Internet, it's possible to organize counter activities that will be difficult to ignore.  This might just be a lot of bluster but if not, we have a new day in Mormonism!

 

I knew I made the right choice to join this Church!

[Duncan]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-church-discipline-questions

 

something to think about

 

I know Dehlin has been on the stake president's radar before but Dehlin seemed satisfied with everything then. As the article pointed out they can always come back if they do get the chop

Edited June 11, 2014 by Duncan

[rockpond]

Arguably, "real growth" includes new members and reactivated ones whose faith and devotion is so solid that it will not be fazed by potentially unpopular actions the Church might have to take from time to time.

 

So if this thing becomes something of a sifting process, perhaps that will serve the cause of "real growth" in the long run.

 

Perhaps...

 

On the other hand, I am an active, TR holding member in a leadership position and these excommunications would be disillusioning after Pres Uchtdorf's recent gen conf appeal for more of a "big tent" Mormonism.

[JLHPROF]

Kate Kelly has posted a response - http://ordainwomen.org/excommunication/

 

I didn't see a link here for it.

 

 

I was informed on June 8 that there will be a disciplinary council held in absentia by my former bishopric on June 22 to try me for “apostasy.” I have moved away from the Washington, DC area, and after I left my former Stake President sent me a letter outlining what he called “informal probation” after meeting with me one time, while I was packing to move.  The trial will be held in my former ward and I am not able to return.

I was open and honest with my bishop from the day we launched ordainwomen.org on March 17, 2013. I communicated with him each and every time Ordain Women did an action and asked that he come to me if he had any questions. While I was living in his ward, he never once personally called me in to meet with him. Nor did he email or call me with any questions regarding Ordain Women. Three weeks after I had moved out of his ward, he sent me this letter.  Convening a council in my absence, after I have moved, is both cowardly and unchristlike.

Excommunication in our church is akin to spiritual death. The life-saving ordinances you have participated in like baptism, confirmation, and temple sealing are moot.  In effect, you are being forcibly evicted from your forever family.

Given the gravity of the situation, I feel like being invited to a council of this sort is akin to being invited to my own funeral.  Reading stories like this one in the New York Times are like reading my own obituary.

When all is said and done, and the deep mourning process for me and for thousands of Mormon women has passed, I feel confident that the joy I have experienced for participating in Ordain Women will vastly outweigh my sorrows.

I am proud of what we have done together. We told the truth.

I am inspired by the courageous Mormon women and men who have sacrificed so much to advocate for gender equality. We took a stand and will continue to do so.

I am strengthened by the Spirit and by what we have accomplished.  We made a difference and have hope for better things in the future.

The Ordain Women movement will continue to grow and to ask important and sincere questions.

Onward,

Kate Kelly

 

Edited June 11, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps...

 

On the other hand, I am an active, TR holding member in a leadership position and these excommunications would be disillusioning after Pres Uchtdorf's recent gen conf appeal for more of a "big tent" Mormonism.

And if, in spite of all that, if you retain your faith and devotion, and if, perchance, your disillusionment provokes some personal introspection and development, I might say, "Behold: real growth!"

[Duncan]

Perhaps...

 

On the other hand, I am an active, TR holding member in a leadership position and these excommunications would be disillusioning after Pres Uchtdorf's recent gen conf appeal for more of a "big tent" Mormonism.

 

as a bonafide Circus history nut I see Dehlin and Kelly as sideshow barkers confusing people from going into the real Big Tent, but their sideshow (while interesting) isn't what people came to see, ultimately

[Scott Lloyd]

Kate Kelly has posted a response - http://ordainwomen.org/excommunication/

 

I didn't see a link here for it.

Not much new here. This was quoted in the Times story and is reflected in OW emails to media.

 

But it is a primary source.

[ERayR]

From all of the uproar I'm seeing on the Internet, this could be a very interesting time for our Church.  To my great surprise, the OW faithful and "Dehlinites" might not go quietly into that good night.  And with the power of the Internet, it's possible to organize counter activities that will be difficult to ignore.  This might just be a lot of bluster but if not, we have a new day in Mormonism!

 

I knew I made the right choice to join this Church!

 

Is t the sound of glee I hear in your post?

[sethpayne]

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.

 

I would consider Deborah -- a prophetess who was consulted by the male Judges in Israel -- to hold a high office.  I would also consider Huldah -- a prophetess who was consulted by the male Josiah about the legitimacy of the found book (Deut.) -- to hold high office.  

 

I'm not suggesting that these two examples mean that the LDS Church should ordain women to priesthood office but I think it is important to note that the Scriptures provide us with some very interesting examples of the role of women in the Church in ancient days.

 

As I've said several times, I'm not an OW support.  Nor am I a detractor.  I see their point on some things and think they go to far on others.  But one thing I do firmly believe is that these women are no threat to the Church.  Those involved OW are already the liberal-types anyway.  OW didn't attract women like my mom etc.... staunch, faithful, conservative members.  So arguments that somehow OW threatened the Church fall a little flat with me.

[mormonnewb]

Is t the sound of glee I hear in your post?

 

Actually, it's more pride.  I really didn't think we had it in us.  It's not the first time that I've been wrong, but it's one of the first time that I've been happy to be wrong.

[Calm]

Golly, talk about "demeaning vocabulary!" You are finding fault with priesthood holders for things they haven't even done yet.Thanks,-Smac

Juliann may have clarified her point already, but I read her as saying those priesthood holders who in the past have demeaned women may add this discipline to their other "ammo".

I am hoping overall that there wiil be an improvement as you've described, that also if OW and other activist groups do not appear so vividly in the public view, change will not be limited out of concern there will be a linkage between the change and the activism (iow assuming it was the agitation that caused the change rather than long term ongoing efforts and thus encourage more agitation/disruption).

However, since I've seen a few men (and women for that matter) lready use Kelly and others as a way to justify dismissing women's concerns and diminishing their importance and input to the Faith before discipline became part of the discussion, I think concern over a possible misuse of the discipline is valid and we need to actively work to ensure that it is your vision of greater cooperation that dominates the Church membership and not the other.

Edited June 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[juliann]

 

Perhaps we can give the priesthood holders the benefit of the doubt instead of preemptively accusing them of causing women in the Church to "suffer" and using the OW group as "ammo" to "keep women 'in their place.'" Golly, talk about "demeaning vocabulary!" You are finding fault with priesthood holders for things they haven't even done yet.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I plainly was speaking about those I am watching do it now.  In other words, they have done it. And I clearly qualified it as "those priesthood holders who will see this as ammo."   And I have no qualms finding fault with those priesthood holders.

Edited June 12, 2014 by juliann

[Zakuska]

Actually, I was thinking that this could facilitate women's progress in the Church. Many of us have objected to Kate Kelly's tactics and rhetoric. I think a consensus is forming that such behaviors are not appropriate in the Church.

That said, the role of women in the Church is a much more openly discussed topic now than it was. I can't help but think that the Brethren, local leaders, and everyone else in the Church interested in this issue are now going to be able to stand back and say "Okay, that didn't go so well. Now that we've all learned some difficult lessons about how not to explore the role of women in the Church, why don't we come together in a spirit of unity and faith and discuss ways we can explore this issue?"

Perhaps we can give the priesthood holders the benefit of the doubt instead of preemptively accusing them of causing women in the Church to "suffer" and using the OW group as "ammo" to "keep women 'in their place.'" Golly, talk about "demeaning vocabulary!" You are finding fault with priesthood holders for things they haven't even done yet.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ever see the "Minority Report"?

Edited June 12, 2014 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

Kate Kelly has posted a response - http://ordainwomen.org/excommunication/

 

I didn't see a link here for it.

From the link:

 

Given the gravity of the situation, I feel like being invited to a council of this sort is akin to being invited to my own funeral.  Reading stories like this one in the New York Times are like reading my own obituary.

 

What a maudlin and transparently coy pretext for slipping in a link she expects will draw approval and prestige to her cause.

 

I think there's an unwritten phrase that should be inferred here, as in "Reading stories like this one in the New York Times (which I and my friends engineered and promoted) are like reading my own obituary."

 

Not many people write their own obituaries.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I would consider Deborah -- a prophetess who was consulted by the male Judges in Israel -- to hold a high office. 

There are prophetesses in the Church of Jesus Christ. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

 

Prophetess is not a priesthood office. The women I spoke of earlier (auxiliary presidencies and women in Public Affairs) I would characterize as prophetesses.

 

And I've just re-read the Book of Judges in the Old Testament. It was not a shining time in the history of the Israelite nation. Some judges (Samson is a prime example) were so corrupt that advice from any righteous person -- woman or man -- would have been all to the good.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

I've often wondered where the 11th article of faith might play into all these questions of Doctrine and Apostasy and being tried for Apostasy etc.

 

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 

Why cant we just all get along?