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

[bluebell]

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.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if each SP let SLC know what was coming, knowing how much public interest this was going to cause and knowing that all involved would go to the press when they got their letters.

 

In that regard, it could certainly be that SLC had a hand in the timing.  I think that's different than suggesting that it was SLC's decision to to the courts in the first place.

[Calm]

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.

Yeah, but input could be along the lines of "we have decided to go ahead with disciplinary action against _____ and thought it would be wise to let ______ know (General Authority over area) given the high media presence in this case" and feedback could amount to simply a "thanks for letting us know".

Maybe the bishops/stake presidents contacted each other for suggestions on how to handle things and they decided to do it at the same time.

Edited June 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

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

FWIW it is your own choices that are leading you.

[jkwilliams]

FWIW it is your own choices that are leading you.

 

I chose to be offended.

[rockpond]

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!"

My faith is not impacted by policy decisions coming forth from SLC.

[bluebell]

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.

 

 

The fact that the 6 discussions were a proselyting tool to help convince other members that OW's cause was valid and just was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.  

 

If members should know one thing, it's that you can't actively teach other people your opinions when they contradict the teachings of the church.  And you certainly can't seek converts from among the members.  

 

What's kind of amazing is that Kelly thought she was the exception to the rule in that regard.

[Calm]

FWIW it is your own choices that are leading you.

Since one can choose to focus on posters/people (to make it generic) who draw one to the faith instead of those who one feels like are driiving one away, I also believe it is a choice.

[Zakuska]

The whole apostasy court thing rubs me the wrong way and stinks of Josiahan reforms. But I do see a precedent for Local area leaders to appeal to higher church authorities in the book of Acts like Paul did.

[mormonnewb]

I'm a fan of KK but I can see how the church would see OW as apostasy.  I just can't see WHY the Church would elevate her (and the movement) to Ghandi Phase 3.

 

"First, they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."

 

Until today, KK was firmly in the ridicule phase (at least, if you judge by the comments on this board).  And the Church had done a pretty good job of "neutralizing" the brunt of OW.  What was their next step?

 

The Church could ignore their Six Discussions on general grounds that all lesson plans are written by those authorized by the Brethren.  Where would that have left OW -- a THIRD attempt to get into the priesthood session at GC?  I'm not even sure that would have gotten press in SLC, nevertheless, nationally.

 

Besides, KK is leaving the country, which means that someone was going to have to step up to lead the group in a whole new direction.  Instead, the Church decides to make her a martyr of sorts?  Well, that's certainly one way to go about it ...

[Calm]

"The Church could ignore their Six Discussions on general grounds that all lesson plans are written by those authorized by the Brethren."

Huh?

The local church leaders have a responsibility to the individual. Depending on the leader, they may see it as a blessing to officially remove someone from the covenant to avoiding continuing in sin even if the person would prefer not to be removed (which would often be the situation if they don't see themselves in apostasy).

Edited June 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[ttribe]

Since one can choose to focus on posters/people (to make it generic) who draw one to the faith instead of those who one feels like are driiving one away, I also believe it is a choice.

 

Of course there is an element of choice, but (IMO) that doesn't absolve the general membership from being mindful of how they might influence others.

[rockpond]

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?

I don't think that they've actively taught false doctrine.

[ERayR]

I chose to be offended.

 

So do I, sometimes.

Edited June 12, 2014 by ERayR

[rockpond]

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

Who's the third?

Ignore that question... I just noticed a message from Rock Waterman, he's the third.

Rock claims that his bishop told him the ultimatum came from an area seventy: stop blogging, resign, or face excommunication.

Edited June 12, 2014 by rockpond

[ERayR]

Of course there is an element of choice, but (IMO) that doesn't absolve the general membership from being mindful of how they might influence others.

 

Nobody I know was making that argument.

[Calm]

Of course there is an element of choice, but (IMO) that doesn't absolve the general membership from being mindful of how they might influence others.

The Lord holds everyone responsible for their choices if they are accountable, that would include being a jerk and letting a jerk offend one to the point of affecting one's discipleship.

[bluebell]

I don't think that they've actively taught false doctrine.

 

They are actively teaching that women must be ordained.

 

The church has come out time and time again to say that ordaining women is against the doctrines of the church.

 

That seems like teaching false doctrine.

[jkwilliams]

Apparently, Rock Waterman says his bishop told him he was directed to start the proceedings by a Seventy.

[Hamba Tuhan]

That seems like teaching false doctrine.

 

Only to those who actually accept that the Church teaches true doctrine.

[Helen47]

http://mormonstories.org/messages-to-my-family/

 

http://janariess.religionnews.com/2014/06/11/facing-mormon-purge/

[rockpond]

They are actively teaching that women must be ordained.

The church has come out time and time again to say that ordaining women is against the doctrines of the church.

That seems like teaching false doctrine.

Is Kelly advocating for that or teaching it as truth? I think there's a significant difference.

I'm a long time reader/listener of Waterman/Dehlin and I don't see anything they've done that would warrant excommunication.

[smac97]

Kelly is going to be disciplined because she expressed a view that the Brethren disagree with.  She openly advocated for change based on her opinion and the views of others involved.  Perhaps I've missed it but I have not seen Kelly call the Brethren names (as Sonia Johnson did), not has she made any unreasonable or offensive requests.

Well, she just publicly accused her bishop of being "cowardly and unchristlike."

And she also has repeatedly publicly demanded that women be ordained to the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice." She has also affiliated herself and her group with an excommunicated apostate. She has also orchestrated an adversarial PR campaign against the Church. She also trespassed onto and protested on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, in direct defiance of instructions of the Church and in violation of the laws of the land and the Church's basic property rights. She has repeatedly and deliberately scheduled events which are calculated to disrupt and distract from the Church's sacred convocations.

I think it is fairly reasonable to say that most observant Latter-day Saints would find these actions "unreasonable" and "offensive."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Has someone quoted the exact grounds for excommunication for apostasy yet? I remember it being more than just teaching false doctrine.

[smac97]

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 think the Church's work will not be substantially interrupted. But even if the work comes under greater opposition, I'm okay with that. I want the Brethren to do what is right, to lead as directed by the Spirit. The Church doing its job will inevitably get someone upset, but as long as the Brethren are following the Spirit, things will end well. "No unhallowed hand" and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

Is Kelly advocating for that or teaching it as truth? I think there's a significant difference.

I'm a long time reader/listener of Waterman/Dehlin and I don't see anything they've done that would warrant excommunication.

 

Is she teaching that women must be ordained, or advocating that women be ordained-is that what you are asking?  I'm not sure i understand what you are saying, because it seems like she has done both.

 

She is advocating for the ordination of women, and also teaching others that the ordination of women is the only acceptable decision for the church to make.