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

[ERayR]

Let's unhijack the thread . . . whaddya say, ERR?

 

Proposition:  KK is plainly a slicked-up Tanner.  Discuss!

 

Oh I don't know about that I think the tanners did better research although their interpretations were not any better.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh I don't know about that I think the tanners did better research although their interpretations were not any better.

To their credit, the Tanners spotted Mark Hofmann for the fraud he was right off the bat.

 

By contrast, well, my friend the late Stan Kimball, Mormon Trail scholar and past president of the Mormon History Association, sarcastically put it this way on one occasion in a conversation to which I was privy: "We in the MHA were so loyal to him. We stood by Hofmann right down to the guilty plea!"

 

But here I am hijacking the thread again. Sorry, Morningstar.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course, the church's authoritative position could be wrong. It could be based on a prophet's personal interpretation or the social environment. The church's authoritative position on race and the priesthood turned out to be wrong, according to the latest statements of the church. Why not this?

As I understand it, the Church has not admitted error on the policy itself, although it has disavowed some past out-on-a-doctrinal-limb explanations for it.

[jkwilliams]

As I understand it, the Church has not admitted error on the policy itself, although it has disavowed some past out-on-a-doctrinal-limb explanations for it.

 

If you were to have asked in, say, 1949, if it was the authoritative position of the church that choices in the premortal existence affected whether you were born black or not, you'd have to say "yes." That position, staked out by the First Presidency, was explicitly rejected in the church's recent essay. So, as I said, it seems that authoritative positions are not necessarily correct.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

*ahem*  People are still talking about homosexuality in my thread.  Please stop or I'm telling. 

You can request to the mods to have them kick those detractors out.

[smac97]

Of course, the church's authoritative position could be wrong.

Individuals with contrary opinions could also be wrong. But it's not just a matter of chance, is it?

As between positions taken by the Brethren, whom I strongly believe to have been called of God and guided by revelation, and self-selected individuals, I choose the former.

As between the interpretation and application of scriptural texts by the Brethren versus self-selected individuals with views hostile and contrary to the Church and to the Brethren, I choose to listen to the former.

As between the popular-but-ungrounded opinions of the day, which change based on caprice, whim and happenstance, and the enduring (though occasionally refined and clarified) position taken by the Church, I choose to listen to the latter.

As between, on the one hand increasing social pressure and, on the other, my personal study and assessment as guided by the Spirit, I choose to adhere to the latter.

 

It could be based on a prophet's personal interpretation or the social environment.

There is no value in "it could be." We have the Spirit. We have the scriptures. We having living prophets and apostles. We have common sense, biology and sociological data. I believe that a Latter-day Saint who avails himself or herself to these resources will find that the Lord has not left us with the moral equivalent of flipping a coin ("it could be...") when evaluating such important questions.

Of course, on the other side there is immense social pressure, calumnies, threats, and so on which combine to confuse and complicate the issue, to "call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" (2 Nephi 15:20).  I think most of us realize that those calling for "change" through popular fiat (as opposed to revelation) don't really have much of a spiritual/doctrinal leg to stand on.  That is why Kate Kelly has resorted to such repellant tactics as protests, demands and affiliating with apostates.

Latter-day Saints, and indeed all followers of Christ, are supposed to emulate Joshua, who said "choose you this day whom ye will serve ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). We can also learn from the example of Elijah, who asked the children of Israel: "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him."

The Law of Chastity and its application in this day is giving the Saints an opportunity to make the same type of choice that Joshua and Elijah spoke of to the children of Israel.

 

The church's authoritative position on race and the priesthood turned out to be wrong, according to the latest statements of the church. Why not this?

First, I do not believe this question is one made in good faith in the current discussion.  It is a post hoc rationalization.  It is a pretext for Latter-day Saints to ignore the scriptures and the prophets and apostles and instead embrace the philosophies of men.

 

Second, as I have said previously:

 

The priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak. This is why Elder McConkie stated as follows (speaking of prior explanations for the ban): "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

 

In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting the priesthood to men. So the distinction between the current understanding/explanation of gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination and previous understandings/explanations of race-based restrictions on priesthood ordination is quite on point.

 

Third, I believe Latter-day Saints owe a strong measure of deference to the Brethren.  The occasional strain of thought amongst some of the Saints to the effect of "I sustain the Brethren, but only as long as what they say happens to comport with trending social notions of the day, or only as long as what they say does not require me to modify my personal opinions, 'cuz otherwise forget any sustaining vote from me" is simply not compatible with continuing discipleship in the Restored Gospel.

 

Fourth, if the Brethren are wrong, I believe the Lord will guide them to that realization.  I do not believe it is the province of a handful of self-selected individuals to publicly present demands of doctrinal change to the Brethren and expect them to hop to.  I just don't think that's how the Lord generally operates.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 20, 2014 by smac97

[teddyaware]

 

Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that God's ways are not the ways of fallen humanity?

This passage seems to be brought up a lot by more orthodox people from numerous faiths, often directed at people in support of progressive ideals. But I'd say, it's equally applicable to orthodoxy . 

 

Have you ever paused to consider the possibility that the Lord may have perfectly good, loving and eternally justifiable reasons for disapproving of gay sexual relationships, reasons that for the present time lie beyond the purview of your fallen human perspective?

I've considered that, and have been forced to reject it due to the harm caused by traditional teachings on homosexuality.  John 7:17 "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."  A true doctrine cannot cause misery for those who try to live by it. Gay people have increased well being when they marry. They are miserable when they try to live by the proscriptions of orthodox religion.

Have you ever pondered the meaning of the following verse of scripture that clearly indicates a man can be fully persuaded in his own mind that something is just and good, when in reality that thing that he esteems as good is the very poison of eternal death?

 

Wickedness never was happiness. Gay people who marry are happier than gay people who remain single or enter mixed orientation marriages for religious reasons. Ergo, gay marriage cannot be wickedness. 

 

Another question: If a Latter-day Saint with same sex attraction chooses to remain single, living his or her entire life (a mere twinkling of an eye in the breadth of endless eternity) in faithful obedience to the standards of sexual morality as plainly set forth by the General Authorities of the Church, what possible harm will come to that individual in the eternal world?

No harm in the eternal world, but a great deal of harm in their ~80s years of life. 

 

For many, the happiness of the Lord is postponed on earth (I included) while their faith in Christ is tried to the utmost in the furnace of affliction. These saints, so tested, will not have their tears of sorrow and lament wiped away by the Lord until they have successfully passed through this phase of earthbound adversity -- even that blessed day when a multitude of tortured souls will finally find healing and rest in the glorious resurrection. Even Christ himself was a man of great sorrows and thoroughly acquainted grief.

The following verses of scripture plainly manifest that suffering, trial and sorrow are part and parcel of the earthly probationary experience.

24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (Galatians 5)

    

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (Hebrews 12)

 

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:10-18)

 

There are some citizens in the Lord's kingdom on earth who's rare moments of happiness are generated only by the bright hope of the holy resurrection from the dead, and the comforting knowledge that they continue to abide in the will of God despite their great temptations, trials and afflictions. 

 

Edited June 20, 2014 by teddyaware

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63722-i-think-maintaining-sexual-fidelity-to-ones-legal-spouse-is-fulfilling-the-law-of-chastity/

 

 

Let the craziness ensue on this thread that I just started.

[Tacenda]

*ahem* People are still talking about homosexuality in my thread. Please stop or I'm telling.

And cannibalism side by side, just isn't right, I'm sad for such backward thinking. OOPS! wrong thread. Edited June 20, 2014 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

A distinction without a difference.

 

No, there is a definite difference between inspiration and revelation.  And as the post you replied to shows, it leads Gray and I to have very different opinions on the reason why women aren't ordained to the priesthood.

[smac97]

No, there is a definite difference between inspiration and revelation.  And as the post you replied to shows, it leads Gray and I to have very different opinions on the reason why women aren't ordained to the priesthood.

 

Could you explain the difference?  I'm not seeing it.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

Could you explain the difference?  I'm not seeing it.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Simple 

- Inspiration is when you feel you know what God wants you to do by the spirit or you ask about a specific and feel the spirit prompting you which course to follow.

 

In relation to the KK situation and this conversation I had with Gray, this would allow leaders to take their cultural bias and only pray about calling men to offices, even though God might actually be fine with calling women.  This is the side Gray takes (if I understand him correctly).

 

- Revelation is the equivalent of a telephone call from heaven - God actually speaks to you and tells you what he expects.  Your own feelings or cultural bias don't get in the way since God actually reveals his will regardless of what you think. 

 

In relation to the KK situation and this conversation I had with Gray, this would demonstrate that the dozens of recorded revelations (such as in the D&C or Wilf.Woodruff calling Heber J. Grant) show that God calls specific men by name to offices but there is a marked absence of God ever calling women to office.  If God specifically names people for offices the fact that he has never named a woman is telling against the OW argument.  Gray does not believe that God communicates this directly and only inspires/prompts.

 

So, if God speaks directly, why has he never called a woman as he has men (Me).  OR If our cultural biases and feelings make us only pray about or consider men then our inspired feelings are suspect (Gray).

Edited June 20, 2014 by JLHPROF

[USU78]

Simple 

- Inspiration is when you feel you know what God wants you to do by the spirit or you ask about a specific and feel the spirit prompting you which course to follow.

 

In relation to the KK situation and this conversation I had with Gray, this would allow leaders to take their cultural bias and only pray about calling men to offices, even though God might actually be fine with calling women.  This is the side Gray takes (if I understand him correctly).

 

- Revelation is the equivalent of a telephone call from heaven - God actually speaks to you and tells you what he expects.  Your own feelings or cultural bias don't get in the way since God actually reveals his will regardless of what you think. 

 

In relation to the KK situation and this conversation I had with Gray, this would demonstrate that the dozens of recorded revelations (such as in the D&C or Wilf.Woodruff calling Heber J. Grant) show that God calls specific men by name to offices but there is a marked absence of God ever calling women to office.  If God specifically names people for offices the fact that he has never named a woman is telling against the OW argument.  Gray does not believe that God communicates this directly and only inspires/prompts.

 

So, if God speaks directly, why has he never called a woman as he has men (Me).  OR If our cultural biases and feelings make us only pray about or consider men then our inspired feelings are suspect (Gray).

 

I don't think the distinction works, as inspiration, in my view, is a subset of revelation, being a broader category.

[mfbukowski]

Bishop,

 

Should we be equally critical of Elder Oaks for calling Mike Quinn a "wolf in sheep's clothing" in public?  Quinn received several threatening letters and calls -- including some death threats.

 

As I see it, folks on both sides often make mistakes during these very emotional and tense episodes.

 

Seth

 

ETA:  Have we confirmed that Kelly posted her Bishop's personal info?  I'm not FB friends with her so I can't see it.  What was the personal info?  Was it is home phone/address or the ward building number/address?  If the latter, then big deal.  You can get that info in the phone book.  If the former, then I think this was a terrible thing to do.

 

But sending letters/calls in support -- or criticism of Kelly to the ward building seems perfectly fine.  I know several SPs and Bishops who have appreciated getting feedback from interested or affected Church members in days past.

Easy there pardner. 

 

Of course it is different.  I was presuming the report was accurate.

 

I am not about to put on my Sherlock Holmes hat and magnifying glass, sans pipe of course, and try to figure out if what she did, if anything,  was just incompetent or actually "terrible", but were I a member of the organization, I would not be a happy camper either way.

 

Clearly Elder Oaks calling someone a "wolf in sheep's clothing" is not a big deal in my book- as you point out- everyone has a phone book.

 

But we agree that publishing someone's personal information in a time of contention especially, is, using your word, a "terrible" thing to do.

 

And it isn't even close to SPs and Bishops "getting feedback" from disaffected members.

Edited June 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

I don't think the distinction works, as inspiration, in my view, is a subset of revelation, being a broader category.

 

And I disagree.  But that's ok. 

I think the distinction between levels of revelatory directness matters.  But of course inspiration is a subset of revelation.  I just believe it is more open to our personal interpretation than when God actually speaks.

[mfbukowski]

Simple 

- Inspiration is when you feel you know what God wants you to do by the spirit or you ask about a specific and feel the spirit prompting you which course to follow.

 

In relation to the KK situation and this conversation I had with Gray, this would allow leaders to take their cultural bias and only pray about calling men to offices, even though God might actually be fine with calling women.  This is the side Gray takes (if I understand him correctly).

 

- Revelation is the equivalent of a telephone call from heaven - God actually speaks to you and tells you what he expects.  Your own feelings or cultural bias don't get in the way since God actually reveals his will regardless of what you think. 

 

In relation to the KK situation and this conversation I had with Gray, this would demonstrate that the dozens of recorded revelations (such as in the D&C or Wilf.Woodruff calling Heber J. Grant) show that God calls specific men by name to offices but there is a marked absence of God ever calling women to office.  If God specifically names people for offices the fact that he has never named a woman is telling against the OW argument.  Gray does not believe that God communicates this directly and only inspires/prompts.

 

So, if God speaks directly, why has he never called a woman as he has men (Me).  OR If our cultural biases and feelings make us only pray about or consider men then our inspired feelings are suspect (Gray).

OOPS

There goes personal revelation for 99.9999999999999999999% of church members.  God's gotta verbally speak in an audible voice, huh?  That means a few people in history perhaps have received "revelations", but unfortunately we cannot figure out who they are, because we don't get revelations about who they were or are.

 

So why are we not all Buddhist, if we can't get revelation about the bible or BOM?

 

No still small voice, no impressions, no "yes this is the right girl to marry", no "I know the Book of Mormon is true", no testimony, huh.

I think your distinction doesn't fly.   I get personal revelations all the time.

 

 

- Revelation is the equivalent of a telephone call from heaven - God actually speaks to you and tells you what he expects.  Your own feelings or cultural bias don't get in the way since God actually reveals his will regardless of what you think.

And if he does it in English, oops- there goes the "cultural bias" problem right back into the mix.  What language does he speak that is free from cultural bias?

 

My Adamic is a little rusty.

Edited June 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MorningStar]

Let's unhijack the thread . . . whaddya say, ERR?

 

Proposition:  KK is plainly a slicked-up Tanner.  Discuss!

That's better.

[MorningStar]

And cannibalism side by side, just isn't right, I'm sad for such backward thinking. OOPS! wrong thread.

Well, if you're going to hijack my thread, better cannibalism than gay marriage.  There aren't 50 something cannibalism threads at any given time.    But for the record, I believe Kate Kelly is not a cannibal.  I'm 67% sure John Dehlin is also not a cannibal.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think the distinction works, as inspiration, in my view, is a subset of revelation, being a broader category.

This.

[Teancum]

"When it goes so far as creating organized groups, staging public events to further a cause or creating literature for members to share in their local congregations, the church has to protect the integrity of its doctrine as well as other members from being misled."

I think it was good at pointing to where the line is crossed.

 

What is an organized group? Is a FB account to dicuss conterversial issues an organized group like Dehlins MS Facebook page?  Is posting there over the line?  Is the blog that Brooks or Reiss do over the line?  What about Rock Waterman? His blog is critical but it is not organized at all yet his membership is in jeopardy.  And if the Church doesn not organize it can the top leaders reign in an over zealous bishop or stake president who may yank a temple recommend or discipline someone for blogging or posting on a blog site.  What about critics who are members who post here?  How about the people here who are hardline believers whose behavior can be far from Christ like and even help drive those with questions right out of the church?

[USU78]

And I disagree.  But that's ok. 

I think the distinction between levels of revelatory directness matters.  But of course inspiration is a subset of revelation.  I just believe it is more open to our personal interpretation than when God actually speaks.

 

So . . . if you are inspired to drive along 7th East instead of 6th East, thus avoiding a downed power line, that isn't G-d actually speaking?

[cdowis]

 The church's authoritative position on race and the priesthood turned out to be wrong, according to the latest statements of the church.

 

No, it does not.

 

If you read *carefully*, it simply deals with the various opinions and speculation on the reason for the ban, not the doctrine itself.  

 

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

 

+++++++++++++++++

The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.¹³

^{+++++++++++++}

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.¹⁵

^{++++++++++++++}

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.²³

 

Nowhere is the doctrine (the ban)  itself disavowed, nor does it say that "it was wrong" and now we "got it right".    You are twisting and misrepresenting its meaning.

Edited June 20, 2014 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

OOPS

There goes personal revelation for 99.9999999999999999999% of church members.  God's gotta verbally speak in an audible voice, huh?  That means a few people in history perhaps have received "revelations", but unfortunately we cannot figure out who they are, because we don't get revelations about who they were or are.

 

So why are we not all Buddhist, if we can't get revelation about the bible or BOM?

 

No still small voice, no impressions, no "yes this is the right girl to marry", no "I know the Book of Mormon is true", no testimony, huh.

I think your distinction doesn't fly.   I get personal revelations all the time.

And if he does it in English, oops- there goes the "cultural bias" problem right back into the mix.  What language does he speak that is free from cultural bias?

 

My Adamic is a little rusty.

 

Oh, now come on.  I am not dismissing inspiration as invalid, but you have to admit it's more open to influence from our feelings.

There is a definite difference between "wow, this gorgeous, stunning girl feels like the right girl to marry" and God saying "Hey, take Mary as your wife" as with Joseph.  Guess which one is more influenced by our feelings and which one more accurately can be interpreted.

 

I find it surprising that so many church members refuse to differentiate the levels of directness and accuracy in the forms of revelation.  Joseph Smith would have been the first to acknowledge the levels of revelation.  We pray and get answers all the time, but for some reason Joseph was concerned that people who were praying every day be taught "how to pray and get an answer".  He was always having to deal with people's false revelations that felt real to them (Hiram Page).

 

Would we really have the church we have today if Joseph had gone into the woods and received the "First Prompting"?  Would Joseph have found and become worthy of receiving the brass plates if instead of Moroni he had the still small voice helping him to find where they were buried and know how to prepare to receive them?  Could the endowment have been taught to Joseph through a burning in the bosom?  Sometimes God does actually TELL us his will.  And to try and keep this thread on track with KK and the OW group, I believe God has TOLD prophets to call men to offices but he has never TOLD a prophet to call a woman.

 

I do not dismiss inspiration as invalid, but it CAN be less reliable as direct communication.  Why is that so hard to accept?  It really rubs people the wrong way but it's born out in scripture and history.

[Teancum]

Excellent. Soon we will purge all of the undesirables.

 

 

Based on the above count yourself among them.  A half dozen other so called believers here as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I find it surprising that so many church members refuse to differentiate the levels of directness and accuracy in the forms of revelation.

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

So I take it, then, that you acknowledge that inspiration is a form of revelation, as opposed to being separate, different or distinct from revelation.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd