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

[sethpayne]

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

 

You claimed that OW believed that the Church had a disease, no?  This was a false statement on your part.  Believing that there may be issues or areas of improvement -- as manifested by symptoms -- is nowhere near saying the Church has a disease.

 

Is it Kelly's province to identify mistakes or areas where we could improve?  Yes.  We are all the body of Christ.  Nowhere do the scriptures say that we all should just shut up and stay quiet.  Honoring a prophet doesn't mean that we shouldn't express our views.  Now, could Kelly have been more delicate in how she approached this?  Yep.  I've said from the beginning that the tactic was flawed.  

 

But is it too much to ask for the leaders of the Church to take time to sit down with women who are obviously hurting and feel marginalized within the Church.  When we are frustrated or struggling often what we really need is some empathy.  

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I've never felt that it was much of a threat to the Church, per se.

 

I think it does confuse and mislead some individuals. Which is unfortunate in its own way.

 

And I think that is a substantial consideration when someone is called before a disciplinary council.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

"Is it Kelly's province to identify mistakes or areas where we could improve?"

There is a difference between identifying problems for discussion and requiring others to follow through on the solution that one dictates no matter what might come up in discussion.

If the Church knows what it will hear ("the only possible solution is to give women the Priesthood), is there much reason to hold that discussion?

If the conversation is focused solely on the negative of someone's behaviour, it will create a sense of 'why bother? There is nothing I can do that will satisfy him/her/them'. The first "discussion" put out by OW gave me the impression that there was nothing of importance enough of a positive nature that men were doing in the Church to draw attention to while there was tons of the wrong stuff (see the Patriarchal Bingo for a snapshot of what I am talking about, I remember not one example of good in it).

Edited June 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[De Groote]

Sister Kelly wrote: 

 

 

Excommunication in our church is akin to spiritual death.

 

No, it is not. Excommunication is an acknowledgement of an existing spiritual problem. It doesn't break covenants, it releases people from covenants they are already breaking. It helps people have the best shot they can have to come back under those covenants. Spiritual death is a separation from God. Excommunication never, ever separates people from God. He does not move away. People move away from Him. His hand is alway outstretched. We can hope that members of the Church will also keep their hands outstretched to her and pray on her behalf.

[ksfisher]

Kelly wrote

"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."

It's been my experience with disciplinary councils that the person being excommunicated has already cut themselves off, through his or her actions, long before the council makes the decision formal.

Edited June 12, 2014 by ksfisher

[Brian 2.0]

Because they are actively leading people away from the church.

 

FWIW, there'a a lot of believing members on this board that are activity leading me away from the church.  

[ksfisher]

FWIW, there'a a lot of believing members on this board that are activity leading me away from the church.

Then, to paraphrase a scripture, if a bookmark offends thee, delete it! Edited June 12, 2014 by ksfisher

[Thinking]

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

 

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

 

If Y happens after X, does it really matter to those who wanted Y to happen if X can be proven to be the cause?

[jkwilliams]

FWIW, there'a a lot of believing members on this board that are activity leading me away from the church.  

 

My wife is convinced this place is a stealth anti-Mormon web site designed to lead the unwitting out the church.

[Kenngo1969]

Perhaps Kate Kelly is hoping that her efforts will precede a change in doctrine/procedure like Byron Marchant's opposition did in 1977 & 1978. Marchant opposed the denial of priesthood to those of African descent and cast an opposing vote against Spencer W. Kimball at the October 1977 general conference. He was excommunicated shortly after that. In the April 1978 conference he organized a protest on Temple Square, was arrested, but promised to organize another one at the October 1978 conference. The revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males was received on June 8, 1978.

You've pointed out two events that appear to be correlated.  What's that old saying about correlation and causation, again?

[Scott Lloyd]

If Y happens after X, does it really matter to those who wanted Y to happen if X can be proven to be the cause?

It probably matters to those who want to make people think the despicable action of X is worthy of emulation.

[Kenngo1969]

Kelly wrote

"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."

It's been my experience with disciplinary councils that the person being excommunicated has already cut themselves off, through his or her actions, long before the council makes the decision formal.

Continued full fellowship (sham fellowship) when one is not keeping one's covenants only damns him or her.  Excommunication can be either the road that leads one permanently out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or it can be the first step back into the Church of Jesus Christ.  Which one it is is entirely up to the excommunicant.

[Brian 2.0]

Deseret News article on this.  Basically just quoting the newsroom statement.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865604976/Two-Mormon-activists-say-they-are-facing-church-discipline.html

[Thinking]

You've pointed out two events that appear to be correlated.  What's that old saying about correlation and causation, again?

 

See post #86.

[mormonnewb]

Continued full fellowship (sham fellowship) when one is not keeping one's covenants only damns him or her.  Excommunication can be either the road that leads one permanently out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or it can be the first step back into the Church of Jesus Christ.  Which one it is is entirely up to the excommunicant.

 

Can you elaborate on what it means to keep one's covenants because my understanding was that we ALL fell short in meeting the Lord's standards?  So is "true" church membership reserved for those who reach a certain percentage of compliance, say 80%?  And if so, is that judged on an aggregate or individual basis?  In other words, must I keep, say, the WoW 80% of the time or must I be in 80% compliance of ALL of the rules combined?  And are there certain rules that count double or even triple?

 

Seriously, I'm really interested in this concept of being a "true member" of the true church.

Edited June 12, 2014 by mormonnewb

[David T]

Sounds like a lesser known but social media made viral blogger actually makes a third in the past week to get a letter. #semisix

[juliann]

 .

Is it Kelly's province to identify mistakes or areas where we could improve?  Yes.  We are all the body of Christ.  Nowhere do the scriptures say that we all should just shut up and stay quiet.  Honoring a prophet doesn't mean that we shouldn't express our views.  Now, could Kelly have been more delicate in how she approached this?  Yep.  I've said from the beginning that the tactic was flawed.  

 

But is it too much to ask for the leaders of the Church to take time to sit down with women who are obviously hurting and feel marginalized within the Church.  When we are frustrated or struggling often what we really need is some empathy.  

I do have to agree with those who point out that KK did set up a no compromise allowed which makes sitting down with her look like a waste of time.  I don't think the flawed tactics can easily be dismissed.  Even now she is still swinging as she publishes that her bishop is "cowardly and unchristlike."  Her name calling, especially of moderate feminists, has alienated her from even from less conservative women. That moderate feminists have been able to say some quite startling things about the state of women in the church without any blowback shouldn't be overlooked.   As much empathy as I have for her situation and distaste for expressions of satisfaction over it, I can't help but feel that she squandered a golden opportunity to benefit women of the church. 

[halconero]

In case anybody missed it, here's the Church's official response:

"The Church is a family made up of millions of individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions. There is room for questions and we welcome sincere conversations. We hope those seeking answers will find them and happiness through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.

"Actions to address a person’s membership and standing in their congregation are convened after lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior. Ultimately, the door is always open for people to return to the Church."

[Daniel Peterson]

FWIW, there'a a lot of believing members on this board that are activity leading me away from the church.  

 

Nobody's faith should depend on the good or bad behavior of any other mortal.

[bluebell]

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.

 

Do you believe that his appeal negated the counsel in the BOM, which explicitly states that if members pose a danger to the flock by actively teaching false doctrine they must repent or have their names removed from membership?

[Calm]

Can you elaborate on what it means to keep one's covenants because my understanding was that we ALL fell short in meeting the Lord's standards?  So is "true" church membership reserved for those who reach a certain percentage of compliance, say 80%?  And if so, is that judged on an aggregate or individual basis?  In other words, must I keep, say, the WoW 80% of the time or must I be in 80% compliance of ALL of the rules combined?  And are there certain rules that count double or even triple?

 

Seriously, I'm really interested in this concept of being a "true member" of the true church.

Intent has a lot to do with it IMO.

A person may be smoking every day but is repentant and attempting to change their behaviour to be more in line with the WoW and in other ways to become a better disciple of Christ. I view that person as in full fellowship even if they don't have a temple recommend. Otoh a person who takes a glass of wine once to demonstrate he or she is not to be told what to do by any church leader and holds to that stance has lost, IMO, the desire to be one with the community of Saints even if he only has one act of defiance but holds to the defiance in his heart and never repents of it, but gloats over his superiority, etc....not a "true member".

[bluebell]

In case anybody missed it, here's the Church's official response:

"The Church is a family made up of millions of individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions. There is room for questions and we welcome sincere conversations. We hope those seeking answers will find them and happiness through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.

"Actions to address a person’s membership and standing in their congregation are convened after lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior. Ultimately, the door is always open for people to return to the Church."

 

I think one of the most interesting things they said is the bolded part.

 

I know there has been talk of this coming down from leadership in SLC so this is obviously some good information to be aware of.

[jkwilliams]

I think one of the most interesting things they said is the bolded part.

 

I know there has been talk of this coming down from leadership in SLC so this is obviously some good information to be aware of.

 

I have a hard time believing that three notifications in the same week are merely coincidental. If nothing else, I doubt very much a stake president or bishop would initiate these proceedings without going up the chain of command.

[ttribe]

Nobody's faith should depend on the good or bad behavior of any other mortal.

 

And yet we are counseled not to hide our light under a bushel.  It seems our example does matter.  It should come as no surprise, then, when we are called to account for setting an example perceived to be harmful to another person's faith.

 

Whether anyone's faith should depend on the good or bad behavior is rather less important than the fact that it does (in actuality) have a great deal of influence on the faith of others, IMO.  The natural follow-up question for introspection, then, is - "How important is the one to me, versus the ninety and nine?"

Edited June 12, 2014 by ttribe

[sethpayne]

I do have to agree with those who point out that KK did set up a no compromise allowed which makes sitting down with her look like a waste of time.  I don't think the flawed tactics can easily be dismissed.  Even now she is still swinging as she publishes that her bishop is "cowardly and unchristlike."  Her name calling, especially of moderate feminists, has alienated her from even from less conservative women. That moderate feminists have been able to say some quite startling things about the state of women in the church without any blowback shouldn't be overlooked.   As much empathy as I have for her situation and distaste for expressions of satisfaction over it, I can't help but feel that she squandered a golden opportunity to benefit women of the church.

I agree. I think the tactics were far to combative to be effective.

I also think an opportunity was missed. Reading Mauss helped me appreciate that the best way to work with and communicate with the brethren is to ensure we do so respectfully while minimizing public scrutiny and criticism. The 6 discussions have some interesting points but by their very nature are too aggressive.

Ultimately I hope we see the day when women bless their own children again. It was done for decades and to my knowledge was never repudiated but simply fell out of practice.