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

[Teancum]

Well, being there is better than either Skype or not being there. So there! ;)Thanks,-Smac

Well Mr. Smac I did agree with you earlier that if she wanted to be there she certainly could be. ;-)

[bluebell]

I am not seeing how this put anyone under a bus.

If women being ordained to the priesthood would be a great blessing to them (as it is to men, per LDS teachings and conference talks on the subject), and Eve's decision to partake of the fruit first (which blessed all of mankind and fulfilled the will of God, per LDS teachings) caused that no woman could be ordained to the priesthood, then Eve (and all women) essentially sacrificed great blessings for the benefit of everyone else (more so males than females).

 

Thus, 'throwing herself under the bus' so to speak.

[Zakuska]

A question popped into my head on the way home from work. If women already have the priesthood as some have supposed (to which i agree) being evidenced in that women officiate over women in the washing and anountings in the temple and thy participate in the true order of prayer as equal priesthood holders. Why arent women then able to officiate and actually to perform BOD (the actual washings)? Take that a step further... Sister missionaries actually performing their own baptisms of investigators?

[The Nehor]

A question popped into my head on the way home from work. If women already have the priesthood as some have supposed (to which i agree) being evidenced in that women officiate over women in the washing and anountings in the temple and thy participate in the true order of prayer as equal priesthood holders. Why arent women then able to officiate and actually to perform BOD (the actual washings)? Take that a step further... Sister missionaries actually performing their own baptisms of investigators?

 

Your premises are flawed.

[Zakuska]

Your premises are flawed.

please elaborate.

[The Nehor]

please elaborate.

 

Women do not hold the Priesthood. They enter the Priesthood Order through the Temple and officiate in ordinances under the direction of those who do hold it (and the necessary keys).

[Zakuska]

Women do not hold the Priesthood. They enter the Priesthood Order through the Temple and officiate in ordinances under the direction of those who do hold it (and the necessary keys).

so then why couldnt a bishop allow a sister in his ward perform a baptism and participate in such a way if all thats really needed is some one holding the keys and a nod in her direction? Edited June 18, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

so then why couldnt a bishop allow a sister in his ward perform a baptism and participate in such a way if all thats really needed is some one holding the keys and a nod in her direction?

 

Because the person who holds the keys of baptism (Mission President or Bishop depending on age) didn't say so. They didn't say so because the people who hold the keys to direct them didn't say they could. They didn't say they could because God didn't tell them they could say that.

[smac97]

Well Mr. Smac I did agree with you earlier that if she wanted to be there she certainly could be. ;-)

Frankly, there may be a silver lining to her being tried in absentia. It would go like this (keep in mind that this is purely conjectural):

1. The disciplinary process proceeds and results in the disfellowshipment or excommunication of Kate Kelly (frankly, I would surmise that disfellowshipment would be the more likely outcome).

2. Kate Kelly, being an attorney, would choose to pursue an appeal of the disciplinary council's decision.

3. On appeal, it is determined that there were procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process, such that the council's decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

4. During this process the heat of the moment will pass, for both sides. Disciplinary measures could be loosened or reversed, Kate Kelly would refrain from publicly slurring the Church and her local leaders, and the OW group would moderate its tone to the point that its claimed objective (asking the Brethren to inquire of the Lord regarding female ordination) will come back into focus and will supersede the OW group's more militant rhetoric/activities (denunciations of "patriarchy," demanding the priesthood and saying that "nothing less will suffice," public agitation against the Church). Perhaps the OW group could meet with the "Mormon Women Stand" group and find common ground.

Whaddya think? Could this happen? Or are any of the following "deal-breakers"?:

A) Maintaining public demands for female ordination on "and nothing less will suffice" grounds (privately petitioning the Brethren could continue, but no more non-negotiable demands);

B) The Six Discussions and efforts to recruit Latter-day Saints to the OW cause through the denunciation of "patriarchy" and by using Church resources (RS lists, etc.).

C) Openly affiliating with excommunicated apostates and/or publicly declaring admiration for them (Margaret Toscano, Lavina Fielding Anderson).

D) Public protests (The OW group has said it will not protest during General Conference any more, but is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way for the OW group to protest if it so chooses).

Thanks,

-Smac

P.S. The more that I think about it, the more I like the idea of a Mormon Women Stand and OW summit.

Edited June 23, 2014 by smac97

[Zakuska]

Because the person who holds the keys of baptism (Mission President or Bishop depending on age) didn't say so. They didn't say so because the people who hold the keys to direct them didn't say they could. They didn't say they could because God didn't tell them they could say that.

yes this gets back to what i was saying earlier "until a revelation comes it is how it is."

[ksfisher]

Because the person who holds the keys of baptism (Mission President or Bishop depending on age) didn't say so. They didn't say so because the people who hold the keys to direct them didn't say they could. They didn't say they could because God didn't tell them they could say that.

20.3.8 Instructions for Performing a Baptism

"Under the direction of the presiding authority, a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder may perform the ordinance."

From Handbook 2

And

8.1.1

"Worthy brethren may be ordained priests when they are at least 16 years old."

And

7.1.1

"Worthy brethren may receive the Melchizedek Priesthood"

[SeekingUnderstanding]

For those who consider Dehlin's podcasts a positive approach to the Church:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/the-june-9-2014-anti-mormon-message-of-john-dehlin

Includes this comment in response to a question of why Hales used "anti-mormon":

I've listened to a lot of John's podcasts, though not so much over the last year. I really enjoyed his episodes with believers as he asked really tough critical questions. Questions that doubting members (like myself) really struggle with. I found it very helpful to hear how different people respond to different questions. I also really enjoyed his episodes where he just let people tell their stories (dealing with divorce, pornography, lgbt issues etc.) Overall his podcast has been a net positive for me in my ability to make the Church work. That said, I have to partially agree with Brian Hales on this issue. When it comes to open critics of the church, John abandons the tough critical questions and asks leading, negative questions (based on the interviews I am familiar with). I didn't find this approach helpful at all and stopped listening to those interviews. Edited June 18, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[juliann]

 

P.S. The more that I think about it, the more I like the idea of a Mormon Women Stand and OW summit.

MWS may have a lot of likes, but I do not accept them as any more representative of Mormon women than OW.  A spoof site was set up called Mormon Women Stand on Rameumptons and they had lots of material to work with. For every misguided comment KK has made, Kathryn Skaggs has made more, including publicizing a conference call with the church PA and playing it as validation from the church. I find it very disturbing that she is regularly embedding links on MWS to her private blog after doing this.

[Calm]

P.S. The more that I think about it, the more I like the idea of a Mormon Women Stand and OW summit.

I want to see if it if happens.

[Zakuska]

20.3.8 Instructions for Performing a Baptism

"Under the direction of the presiding authority, a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder may perform the ordinance."

From Handbook 2

And

8.1.1

"Worthy brethren may be ordained priests when they are at least 16 years old."

And

7.1.1

"Worthy brethren may receive the Melchizedek Priesthood"

Yes I get and know all this. But heres the thing. Were not talking about what a manual says.

Women officiate in ordinances in the temple that only melq priesthood holders perform (ie washings and anointings) they do not hold the melq priesthood yet they perform the ordinances. So if they perform these ordinances sans priesthood and "Washings" is the equivalent of baptisms. Then why cant they perform them outside the temple under the proper direction? There seems to be no real reason other than that the bretheren are being selfish and controlling.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Zakuska

[juliann]

Because the person who holds the keys of baptism (Mission President or Bishop depending on age) didn't say so. They didn't say so because the people who hold the keys to direct them didn't say they could. They didn't say they could because God didn't tell them they could say that.

I don't think it hurts to admit that, at least until now, this was just done on a "that's how we have always done it" basis. That we haven't had anyone come out and say something resoundingly definitive should make us aware that anything we come up with needs to be well documented.

 

I think what would be most helpful at this point....and which I haven't seen, is a careful analysis of the changes in rhetoric. They are small...but I think meaningful. I think we are losing a lot when we begin to explain and describe priesthood in terms of keeping it away from women.  That became clear to me while reading the old Relief Society Magazines when that need didn't exist. This article by a then Seventy McConkie was the best and most straight forward explanation of keys I have seen.  (Elder Oaks talk was awesome...but everyone I have talked to found it a little confusing.)   While reading through the magazines, it was also apparent they did not refer to men as "the priesthood", so I had to condition myself to read priesthood as priesthood.  It would be interesting to see when the practice of calling men "the priesthood" began.

 

http://www.archive.org/stream/reliefsocietymag1950reli#page/148/mode/2up

[Kenngo1969]

I've listened to a lot of John's podcasts, though not so much over the last year. I really enjoyed his episodes with believers as he asked really tough critical questions. Questions that doubting members (like myself) really struggle with. ...

Yeah.  From what I understand, he saves his creampuff questions for those who are critical/skeptical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[smac97]

MWS may have a lot of likes, but I do not accept them as any more representative of Mormon women than OW.  A spoof site was set up called Mormon Women Stand on Rameumptons and they had lots of material to work with. For every misguided comment KK has made, Kathryn Skaggs has made more, including publicizing a conference call with the church PA and playing it as validation from the church. I find it very disturbing that she is regularly embedding links on MWS to her private blog after doing this.

I think I found the spoof site (on Facebook, right?). I was not particularly impressed with it. It seemed mean-spirited and condescending.

I haven't read a lot of Kathryn Skaggs. This comment seemed okay to me: "Let me also point out that, contrary to some feeling that the desire for female ordination is nothing more than a faithful attempt to ask a difficult question, the focus of that post had very little to do with what OW are advocating for (not that I agree) but rather how an organized group of Mormon women (any group within the Church for that matter) planned to go about getting their demands met; not okay." I also reviewed her blog posts about this issue, and they seem to fall within reasonable parameters. I read through the MWS website and did not find anything aberrant or offensive.

I can look into it more, but my initial impression is that there is no parity between the OW group and MWS.

In any event, I don't understand your complaint that MWS is "(not) any more representative of Mormon women than OW." Even putting aside my incredulity at the suggestion that MWS/OW is essentially a "potayto/potahto" kind of thing, what group - in your view - is "representative of Mormon women?" Does such a group even exist? Can such a group exist?

Furthermore, so what if MWS does not represent all Mormon women. Neither does OW, and yet we are all listening to them far more than to MWS (even though the Pew polls suggest that LDS women hew closer to the MWS position than the OW position). What would the harm be in having these two groups meet and share ideas? Nobody would claim that this would be binding on all LDS women everywhere. But what is the harm in just having a conversation?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 18, 2014 by smac97

[The Nehor]

Yes I get and know all this. But heres the thing. Were not talking about what a manual says.

Women officiate in ordinances in the temple that only melq priesthood holders perform (ie washings and anointings) they do not hold the melq priesthood yet they perform the ordinances. So if they perform these ordinances sans priesthood and "Washings" is the equivalent of baptisms. Then why cant they perform them outside the temple under the proper direction? There seems to be no real reason other than that the bretheren are being selfish and controlling.

You could also go with the "God said so" reasoning. If the Brethren are so out of touch with God that they are selfishly hoarding priesthood to feed their egos then the church as a whole is in apostasy and priesthood is meaningless in any case so why seek it?

[teddyaware]

Yes I get and know all this. But heres the thing. Were not talking about what a manual says.

Women officiate in ordinances in the temple that only melq priesthood holders perform (ie washings and anointings) they do not hold the melq priesthood yet they perform the ordinances. So if they perform these ordinances sans priesthood and "Washings" is the equivalent of baptisms. Then why cant they perform them outside the temple under the proper direction? There seems to be no real reason other than that the bretheren are being selfish and controlling.

Yea, that's the ticket, the Lord's mouthpieces on earth are selfish and controlling. I believe it's quite likely Kate would be in full agreement with you. Well it's off to bed now and because of you I'll sleep deeply and peacefully tonight thanks to your brilliant and compelling insight.

[ksfisher]

Yes I get and know all this. But heres the thing. Were not talking about what a manual says.

Women officiate in ordinances in the temple that only melq priesthood holders perform (ie washings and anointings) they do not hold the melq priesthood yet they perform the ordinances. So if they perform these ordinances sans priesthood and "Washings" is the equivalent of baptisms. Then why cant they perform them outside the temple under the proper direction? There seems to be no real reason other than that the bretheren are being selfish and controlling.

Inside the temple the keys held by the temple president authorize him to assign women to officiate in specific ordinances. Outside of the temple the priesthood keys held by bishops and mission presidents authorize him only to assign the performance of the ordinance of baptism to worthy brethren holding the office of priest, elder, or high priest.

If we believe that the apostles and prophets who lead us are being selfish and controlling then I see no reason to show up on Sunday except for the pot-luck after the block.

If, on the other hand, we truly sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators, then we have faith that they lead the church under the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the inspiration and revelation that they receive through the Holy Spirit.

Edited June 18, 2014 by ksfisher

[JAHS]

Planning Guide for Holding a Sisters in Silence Vigil for Kate Kelly on June 22:

Among the planned activities:

 

"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;”

 

http://ordainwomen.org/planning-guide-for-holding-a-sisters-in-silence-vigil/

 

Their attitude in continuing to make a public spectacle out of this is amazing.

[The Nehor]

Planning Guide for Holding a Sisters in Silence Vigil for Kate Kelly on June 22:

Among the planned activities:

 

"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;”

 

http://ordainwomen.org/planning-guide-for-holding-a-sisters-in-silence-vigil/

 

Their attitude in continuing to make a public spectacle out of this is amazing.

For Sisters in Silence they sure do love to talk.....mostly gibberish for some reason. I am guessing Paul faced a similar movement and from that came his counsel for women to keep silent in church.

[Zakuska]

Inside the temple the keys held by the temple president authorize him to assign women to officiate in specific ordinances. Outside of the temple the priesthood keys held by bishops and mission presidents authorize him only to assign the performance of the ordinance of baptism to worthy brethren holding the office of priest, elder, or high priest.

If we believe that the apostles and prophets who lead us are being selfish and controlling then I see no reason to show up on Sunday except for the pot-luck after the block.

If, on the other hand, we truly sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators, then we have faith that they lead the church under the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the inspiration and revelation that they receive through the Holy Spirit.

Ive always been taught that one must hold the priesthood to perform any ordinances yet here we have women performing ordinances sans priesthood. so which is it?

[ksfisher]

Ive always been taught that one must hold the priesthood to perform any ordinances yet here we have women performing ordinances sans priesthood. so which is it?

I really can't answer for what you've been taught. However, almost all Sunday instruction relates to our conduct outside of the temple.

Edited June 18, 2014 by ksfisher