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

[juliann]

deleted

Edited June 19, 2014 by juliann

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently, Ms. Kelly has published her bishop's name and contact info on FB.    I'd like to say something like...beneath contempt....

 

I thought this blog had a unique viewpoint, although it can be taken as anti-intellectual I think that is missing the point  http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2014/06/ordain-women-whose-movement-is-it-2/3595/

I agree this is a very thoughtful essay, and I would add that it gets to the heart of the matter in a way that I haven't seen before now.

 

To argue that it is anti-intellectual would be to ignore that it is very intelligently thought out and expressed. If we are to apply an online dictionary defintion for intellectual as "of or relating to the intellect," this piece meets the definition with precision.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Zakuska]

i'll ignore all the personal attacks and insinuations as to my motives im getting right now and ill quote.

"We must have priesthood authority to act in the name of God when performing the sacred ordinances of the gospel."- Content removed -

So i ask again these sisters standing in these boths "officating" in the place of God for these other sisters either have the Priesthood or they dont. Its as simple as that.

1) if they dont, then the gospel principles manual needs a revision and some exception handling put inplace.

2) but if they do, then all the flak im getting right now for simply daring to ask a question and try and make other posters be consistant in their argumentation is uncalled for.

 

No Temple talk. If you'd like, you can read the rules again.

~ Mods

I keep seeing people quote this and the Mods castigating me for supposed "temple talk".

Mods, i humbly submit that "being dressed in nothing but a sheet" isnt "temple talk".

For we read in the book of Mark in the context of anointing.

Mark Chapter 14

Jesus is anointed with oil—He eats the Passover, institutes the sacrament, suffers in Gethsemane, and is betrayed by Judas—Jesus is falsely accused, and Peter denies that he knows Him.

51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: 52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

[mfbukowski]

Few doctrines in the restored church are as core and fundamental to its existance as the restoration of the priesthood. That one doctrine alone sets us apart from all other churches on the planet and gives the church a reason to exist. Without it, we become just another run-of-the-mill church like any other church out there. But with it, we become the only church on the face of the planet with authorization from God to perform those saving ordinances in which God will recognize them.

There is a difference between a "non-priesthood holding" Sister being allowed to perform an anointing in the temple by a key holding temple president and a priesthood holding man being allowed to do the same thing.

Priesthood holding men have all been given the exact same authority. I have the exact same authority as President Monson has and i can perform any preisthood office in all the church even that of "prophet" with the caviat that i must seek out he who holds those keys and get his ok to do such as well as being called to do it of course.

The modern church is adiment that Sisters do not hold the priesthood,have never held it, and never will. And despite being "allowed" to perform anointings in the temple, this goes against the core fundamental and basic of basic teachings that you must hold the priesthood to perform ordinances that God will recognize period AND you must be authorized by the key master to do it.

The church is finding itself in this quandry:

1) If the church is correct and women dont hold the priesthood. Then all the ordinances that women have officiated over while performing anointings sans-priesthood on other women for the past 150 years only being given a nod by the temple presidents to do such are no better than the ordinances performed by a Catholic Priest or Baptist Street preacher. A temple president could just as easily give them a nod and allow them to officiate over A baptism for the dead but its not going to be recognized until they themselves are baptized and ordained a priest in the Aaronic Priesthood.

There's no point in arguing with you. I have posted what I believe. There is no practical difference in the temple between sisters and brethren and their authority.

I believe you are making fanciful distinctions without basis. I do not think sisters need to be ordained to the priesthood because it is not necessary. In the temple compare the wording of the ordinances. Men and women receive totally different ordinances. Ask your wife after she has memorized the wording. I wish men were eligible for those blessings, but we are not.

I would trade my priesthood for those blessings in a minute.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nice anti intellectual rant cited there.

This reminds me of the vitriol back in the days of the September Six. They were widely characterized as "Mormon intellectuals," as though all those who disagreed with them were non-intellectuals. They were more accurately characterized as Mormon dissidents.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

I keep seeing people quote this and the Mods castigating me for supposed "temple talk".

Mods, i humbly submit that "being dressed in nothing but a sheet" isnt "temple talk".

Not only is it temple talk, it is also a lie.

Do some ordinances don't lie about them

Edited June 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

Words fail me. Has Kate Kelly become an agent provocateur? I would hope that recent developments (including John Dehlin's stake president calling for a "de-escalation") would trigger some conciliatory efforts. Instead, we have her publicly accusing her bishop of being "cowardly and unchristlike," we have her writing inflammatory articles and giving inflammatory interviews, we have her organizing letter-writing campaigns on her behalf (while simultaneously claiming that she is not trying to create a following), we have have her telling the Salt Lake Tribune how much she admires Margaret Toscano and other excommunicated apostates, and now she is publishing her bishops name and contact information on Facebook?

What is going on with this person?

Thanks,

-Smac

I hope for the sake of everyone involved that no violence or harm to the bishop or his family results from this.

[smac97]

Well you know some people just don't "feel the love" when threatened with excommunication for apostasy, never understood that.

She racked up an (un)impressive record of inappropriate behavior before any disciplinary action was taken, such as:

1) demanding the priesthood ("our unequivocal call for ... the ordination of Mormon women") and declaring that "nothing less will suffice" (and then characterizing this non-negotiable demand as merely asking the Brethren to inquire with the Lord about the matter);

2) Affiliating with excommunicated apostates (inviting one to be a key speaker at the OW group's founding event, and more recently publicly declaring her admiration for several excommunicated apostates);

3) Deliberately scheduling OW events to conflict with and distract from the Church's sacred convocations; and

4) Defying the Church and trespassing and protesting on sacred ground during a sacred convocation.

But back to the question: Is Kate Kelly become an agent provocateur?

Thanks,

-Smac

[GingerRed]

I hope for the sake of everyone involved that no violence or harm to the bishop or his family results from this.

 

Someone on here said that he was already getting death threats?? Unbelievable!

 

I have lost all respect for this 'woman'. Satan has his stronghold on her good and tight.    Hope she's happy with herself. 

 

Red

[smac97]

Someone on here said that he was already getting death threats?? Unbelievable!

 

I have lost all respect for this 'woman'. Satan has his stronghold on her good and tight.    Hope she's happy with herself. 

 

Red

I don't think anyone has said he is getting death threats. But publishing a private person's contact information online in a volatile and tense situation like this is exceedingly unwise.

And please refrain from making comments about Satan having a hold on her. You know no such thing, and such conjectural slurs are offensive and inappropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zakuska]

Not only is it temple talk, it is also a lie.Do some ordinances don't lie about them

oh so now to top it off im being called a liar. Isnt that against board rules?

I do washings and anointings. I know of where i speak. and lest i realy talk about the temple by using proper names for what is worn when instead of veiled language. I digress.

PS. Jesus performed anointings wearing nothing but a towel. John 13.

I guess thats temple talk too huh?

Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[Avatar4321]

So then... perhaps this originated with BY like the Priesthood ban for blacks?

 

Or maybe it's always been this way for a reason.

[GingerRed]

I don't think anyone has said he is getting death threats. But publishing a private person's contact information online in a volatile and tense situation like this is exceedingly unwise.....

 

 

No someone DID mention that, that he WAS getting death threats.....I can't recall which poster. But when I saw that, I was thinking how can that be? Then it was said KK posted his contact info, so now I know.

 

 

Red

[Zakuska]

Or maybe it's always been this way for a reason.

And maybe the reason is to be a catalyst so Eve can break the chains that bind her and be restored to her pre-fall state. Where she was subject to the Lord alone and the covenant is fulfilled one eternal round and all that. Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[Pahoran]

I agree that they havent been instructed to do so. But perhaps that now the question has come up, they should be doing what President Kimball did and be asking the Lord through Urimm and Thummim as the Prophets of old did, what his will on the matter is.

And how do you know the question hasn't been asked and answered?

 

That Joseph Smith Gave women the Priesthood as well as Blacks is not a question its an historical fact. That BY took it away is also a fact.

Is it?

Or is it rather a matter of interpretation?

What record can you show of any woman in Joseph's time being ordained to any Priesthood office with his approval?

What record can you show of any woman in Joseph's time performing baptisms, or conferring the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, or ordaining anyone else to any Priesthood office, with his approval?

If I were to tell you that it was simply the case that blessings of the sick, and blessings of comfort and counsel, were regarded as non-Priesthood functions at that time, what evidence would you have to the contrary?

 

That women are strictly limited in the practice of their Priesthood Authority in today's church is also a Fact.

 

The question remains... why?   And I as Joseph Smith blame it on Unrighteous Dominion.

Joseph said that about women not holding the Priesthood, did he?

Where and when?

Zak, apostasy doesn't cease to be apostasy just because the apostates get a bit of a bandwagon going. Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

No someone DID mention that, that he WAS getting death threats.....I can't recall which poster. But when I saw that, I was thinking how can that be? Then it was said KK posted his contact info, so now I know.

 

 

Red

No, I said I had seen a mention from an OW supporter of Dehlin's Stake President getting a death threat but couldn't verify it beyond what I read.

[GingerRed]

No, I said I had seen a mention from an OW supporter of Dehlin's Stake President getting a death threat but couldn't verify it beyond what I read.

 

 

OH! Okay! Sorry my bad.

[Stone holm]

She racked up an (un)impressive record of inappropriate behavior before any disciplinary action was taken, such as:1) demanding the priesthood ("our unequivocal call for ... the ordination of Mormon women") and declaring that "nothing less will suffice" (and then characterizing this non-negotiable demand as merely asking the Brethren to inquire with the Lord about the matter);2) Affiliating with excommunicated apostates (inviting one to be a key speaker at the OW group's founding event, and more recently publicly declaring her admiration for several excommunicated apostates);3) Deliberately scheduling OW events to conflict with and distract from the Church's sacred convocations; and4) Defying the Church and trespassing and protesting on sacred ground during a sacred convocation.But back to the question: Is Kate Kelly become an agent provocateur?Thanks,-Smac

Did you say it was an unimpressive record? I think I agree with that none of those sound very impressive. Since when are we suppose to shun excommunicated members...or is that part of the love. The way I was trained was that you were suppose to work with them in hopes of bringing them back in to the Church.

[Buzzard]

And you read the Mormon meaning of ordain into that, just as we try to do with deacon, elder, etc. Does he speak of an ordinance/ritual behind this? Does he ever? Do the other gospel writers?  Yet they speak of temple ritual....

 

That is why ordained is often translated as appointed.

I'm not as smart as some of the other posters here, but my simple reading of Christ's statement is that he did two separate things: Chose (called) them to be apostles, and ordained them to the office and calling of an apostle. Anyone could choose to follow Christ, but he picked and set apart his apostles, and told them so in this passage.

[Buzzard]

I hope a copy and paste from another board is appropriate here, I 'm sure the mods will let me know if it isn't. This comes from a BYU sports board, where discussion often spills into religious topics. The information is not publicly sourced, but the poster does state that he has personal inside knowledge of the beginnings of OW. If the core of what he says is true, it is less surprising that the church is drawing the line with our OW sisters.

 

"Thanks to my loud-mouthed cousin, who is a leader of OW, I am privy to this information. I have kept this information reserved for boardmail or FO (Friends only, a function that exists on this other board) posts, but it seriously concerns me that the public actually believes the OW group is a legitimate doctrinally-concerned faction of faithful women and men. It may contain members that now fit that description, but that is not at all how it began. In fact, my cousin was an original leader in the movement and is completely bent on destroying the Church in its current state, although she has since moved behind the scenes of OW because she doesn't fit the profile of a faithful member, which would be a negative signal to the larger audience they hope to draw in.

I also know the foundations of how OW got started - behind the scenes - and "ordaining women" was simply the boldest of their potential endeavors, so they went with it after considering a long list of other politically-motivated designs. Included in those original discussions were Kate Kelly and Hannah Wheelwright. Since then, they have slowly accumulated rhetoric that attempts to reach a broader audience, but their main goal is founded on political leanings and was never rooted in a sincere desire to better understand the doctrine of the Priesthood. The original pants-wearing movement was decided after considering a long list of potential activist demonstrations, including withholding tithing, refusing to attend Church one Sunday every year in protest, sitting on the stand if one was a RS President, bearing testimony of Heavenly Mother, praying to Heavenly Mother in Sunday meetings, donating their tithing to a feminist charity that promotes gender sameness and letting Church leaders know why, and others. Later, they chose the "Ordain Women" movement after the pants thing gained some traction. All ideas are based on the premise that the leaders of the Church will succumb to social pressures, and their current pronouncements that all they want is for the leaders to "ask" is a bald-faced lie. They seriously believed and considered that withholding tithing would force the Brethren to act.

I also know for a fact that they have sent other private letters to Church leaders that they haven't disclosed to the public, and LDS HQ also will not release these letters out of respect for privacy. These letters are much more demanding and less kind, even threatening departure from the Church if things "continue as they are." This explains why the Church itself has classified their "petitions" as "demands."

So no, they didn't originally simply look at Church history and begin this movement because they truly felt that Joseph Smith wanted to ordain women. All of that was layered on later in order to fit their argument, and all along it's simply been a game of trying to force Church leaders to change something to fit their political ideals, not because God tells them to, but because they did."

[The Nehor]

I don't think anyone has said he is getting death threats. But publishing a private person's contact information online in a volatile and tense situation like this is exceedingly unwise.

And please refrain from making comments about Satan having a hold on her. You know no such thing, and such conjectural slurs are offensive and inappropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Satan has a hold over her. This is not conjecture. It might be offensive but it is also true.

 

Let's keep this as civil as possible please, Satan isn't any more welcome here than Hitler.

[Zakuska]

Satan has a hold over her. This is not conjecture. It might be offensive but it is also true.

Doesnt he have hold on us all? Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

Doesnt he hwveva hold on us all?

 

I don't know. I know he has some hold over me but I am trying to shake him off. Others are probably further along in the process or avoided getting caught the way most people do.

[GingerRed]

 

I hope a copy and paste from another board is appropriate here, I 'm sure the mods will let me know if it isn't. This comes from a BYU sports board, where discussion often spills into religious topics. The information is not publicly sourced, but the poster does state that he has personal inside knowledge of the beginnings of OW. If the core of what he says is true, it is less surprising that the church is drawing the line with our OW sisters.

 

"Thanks to my loud-mouthed cousin, who is a leader of OW, I am privy to this information. I have kept this information reserved for boardmail or FO (Friends only, a function that exists on this other board) posts, but it seriously concerns me that the public actually believes the OW group is a legitimate doctrinally-concerned faction of faithful women and men. It may contain members that now fit that description, but that is not at all how it began. In fact, my cousin was an original leader in the movement and is completely bent on destroying the Church in its current state, although she has since moved behind the scenes of OW because she doesn't fit the profile of a faithful member, which would be a negative signal to the larger audience they hope to draw in.

I also know the foundations of how OW got started - behind the scenes - and "ordaining women" was simply the boldest of their potential endeavors, so they went with it after considering a long list of other politically-motivated designs. Included in those original discussions were Kate Kelly and Hannah Wheelwright. Since then, they have slowly accumulated rhetoric that attempts to reach a broader audience, but their main goal is founded on political leanings and was never rooted in a sincere desire to better understand the doctrine of the Priesthood. The original pants-wearing movement was decided after considering a long list of potential activist demonstrations, including withholding tithing, refusing to attend Church one Sunday every year in protest, sitting on the stand if one was a RS President, bearing testimony of Heavenly Mother, praying to Heavenly Mother in Sunday meetings, donating their tithing to a feminist charity that promotes gender sameness and letting Church leaders know why, and others. Later, they chose the "Ordain Women" movement after the pants thing gained some traction. All ideas are based on the premise that the leaders of the Church will succumb to social pressures, and their current pronouncements that all they want is for the leaders to "ask" is a bald-faced lie. They seriously believed and considered that withholding tithing would force the Brethren to act.

I also know for a fact that they have sent other private letters to Church leaders that they haven't disclosed to the public, and LDS HQ also will not release these letters out of respect for privacy. These letters are much more demanding and less kind, even threatening departure from the Church if things "continue as they are." This explains why the Church itself has classified their "petitions" as "demands."

So no, they didn't originally simply look at Church history and begin this movement because they truly felt that Joseph Smith wanted to ordain women. All of that was layered on later in order to fit their argument, and all along it's simply been a game of trying to force Church leaders to change something to fit their political ideals, not because God tells them to, but because they did."

 

 

 

WOW! Interesting....

 

I had a feeling a lot was going on behind the scenes we didn't know about that hasn't been made public. 

 

 

Red

[Calm]

There is no way of knowing if this is credible or a complete fabrication. (not referring to Buzzard but the person who wrote this)