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

[teddyaware]

That is all lovely well and true. However what you fail to mention at all in this response, which was the point of your first post, is.... the priesthood.  Yes, men and women are different and have complimenting qualities.

 

But in your theory, this statement would need be revised thusly, "Man is not without the woman (as she is), and woman is not without the man (accept he be coupled with an- ad hoc-human-quality-character-buiding-power and certificate).

 

If anything, priesthood power and authority (according to modern vernacular) is given to both men and women alike, and is to act upon them both in their respective capacities in order for both to obtain their highest potential.

 

In other words, women need the priesthood, and exercise in the priesthood, just as much as men do.

 

I reject the notion that men are basket cases, unlike women, unless some special dispensation is given them, "the priesthood", in order to level the playing field.

It's off to my cousin's 70th birthday party, so I'll answer you later. Just one question though. In light of the above, I'm interested to know if you believe the priesthood structure of the Church, as it exists today, provides sufficient priesthood power to the sisters? If not, are you and advocate of Kate Kelly's position?

[ksfisher]

Just read the op-ed piece.

She uses the phrase "active members and dissident members like me." I guess that answers my question.

13 June 2014

AN OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP MARK HARRISON AND PRESIDENT THOMAS S. MONSON AND THE FIRST PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS AND THE COUNCIL OF TWELVE APOSTLES:

I stand in solidarity with Kate Kelly and her plea to grant women equal standing in the rights, responsibilities and privileges of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, including the right to hold the Priesthood. Revelations occur. Whereas Polygamy was once sanctioned through revelation, now it is not. Whereas African Americans were told they could not hold the Priesthood, now they do. Doctrines that denied dignity or defied the rights of law to individuals within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, have changed through modern-day revelation. The time has come to shift the religious inequality toward women and allow sisters to lead alongside their brothers in prayer and power and purpose.

For the Mormon Church to continue to preserve this spiritual patrimony is to affirm its organizational misogyny. Why is asking to grant half its membership equal power under God viewed as apostasy? Why is a vision to ordain women worthy of disciplinary action and excommunication, when twelve-year old boys are 'given' the priesthood? Are men and women not equal under God's eyes?

This kind of governance is not tolerated in the United States of America. And it should not be tolerated by those of us who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

The question must be asked: What are you afraid of?

In 1977, I watched the Mormon Church undermine the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in Salt Lake City, Utah. It is a well known and documented story. And in 1979, I watched Sonia Johnson similarly demonized and disciplined, ironically, by her local congregation in Virginia, as well, for speaking out for the rights of women which led to her excommunication. And in 1993, I witnessed Professor Cecilia Konchar Farr exercise her voice concerning violence against women at Brigham Young University, and when she spoke out on behalf of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, I watched her charged with "violating her responsibilities as a university citizen" and accused of "undermining the faith of her students." She did not pass her three-year review and was denied her teaching contract. At this same time, historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Pulitzer Prize winning author and MacArthur Fellow, was rejected by BYU's Board of Trustees as a keynote speaker at BYU 's Women's Conference. Was it because Ulrich was a founding member of Exponet II, a feminist journal for Mormon women? 1993 was also the year of 'The September Six' excommunications, six Mormon scholars, half of them feminists, dismembered for raising questions of sexism, homophobia, and intellectual disparities within LDS religious doctrine.

This is our history. I thought the era of retribution was behind us. Apparently, not. Kate Kelly speaks for all of us within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints who care about an equality of power for women -- active members and dissident members like me – men and women, both -- who believe there is no difference in the spiritual aspirations between men and women, gay, straight, or transgender. Each of us are the creators of the world we wish to live in, with equal power, equal voice, and equal opportunities beyond the womb.

At a time when sexual assault, rape, and repeated acts of violence against women are under public scrutiny and part of the public conversation that is happening around the world, the Mormon Church's ongoing policy to withhold ordination from women is its own act of violence.

Before my mother died, she faced her young granddaughters, and said, "I pray that one day, you two will hold the priesthood."

I believe my mother's voice was prophetic delivered with love and wise intention. Kate Kelly is delivering this intention now and it is not without the labor pains of a movement with momentum. I do not believe Kate Kelly should be disciplined for her vision of women ordained. Nor do I believe she should be excommunicated for exercising her voice in public. Her disciplinary hearing set for June 22, 2014, in Virginia where she no longer resides, is another attempt to silence women by a world religion run by men.

Behind Kate Kelly and ‘Ordain Women’, there is a long lineage of women, old and young and in between, not interested in asking for permission or hoping for a revelation, but rather, ready and willing to carry this vision forward in prayer and in action, for the simple reason, it is time. This is not an act of apostasy, but an act of self-respect, and a belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will honor its sisters of faith, not punish them.

Sincerely,

Terry Tempest Williams

Castle Valley, Utah

https://www.facebook.com/terrytempestwilliams/posts/784134901605498

[smac97]

I'm only vaguely aware of Terry Tempest Williams. How active and committed to the Church has she been up to now?

 

I don't know. She refers to herself in the article as a "dissident," so be her own words she appears to not be "committed to the Church."  In this interview she describes herself as "not (an) orthodox (Mormon)" and having a "sacred rage" against certain aspects of Mormon culture.  In this interview from 2000 she refers to her "Mormon culture" (as opposed to "faith" or "religion"), but later on in the article she claims membership in the Church but states that her "religious views are not entirely orthodox," and that she has not been excommunicated "so far."  Nate Oman noted here in 2004 that his mother is her (Terry Williams') former visiting teacher, and that Williams "is not active in the church" as for 4-5 years before that time (2004).  In that same link another poster quotes Williams as saying "I do not believe that there is only one true church."  In this interview she describes the Church as "a corporation" which would have had a "subtle" and "invisible" "say in governance" of the United States if Mitt Romney had been elected president.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 21, 2014 by smac97

[bluebell]

 

I don't know. She refers to herself in the article as a "dissident," so be her own words she appears to not be "committed to the Church."  In this interview she describes herself as "not (an) orthodox (Mormon)" and having a "sacred rage" against certain aspects of Mormon culture.  In this interview from 2000 she refers to her "Mormon culture" (as opposed to "faith" or "religion"), but later on in the article she claims membership in the Church but states that her "religious views are not entirely orthodox," and that she has not been excommunicated "so far."  Nate Oman noted here in 2004 that his mother is her (Terry Williams') former visiting teacher, and that Williams "is not active in the church" as for 4-5 years before that time (2004).  In that same link another poster quotes Williams as saying "I do not believe that there is only one true church."  In this interview she describes the Church as "a corporation" which would have had a "subtle" and "invisible" "say in governance" of the United States if Mitt Romney had been elected president.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

This all makes me wonder why she thinks she has any relevant things to say from a member's perspective, if she doesn't believe in the church and isn't even active in it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know. She refers to herself in the article as a "dissident," so be her own words she appears to not be "committed to the Church." In this interview she describes herself as "not (an) orthodox (Mormon)" and having a "sacred rage" against certain aspects of Mormon culture. In this interview from 2000 she refers to her "Mormon culture" (as opposed to "faith" or "religion"), but later on in the article she claims membership in the Church but states that her "religious views are not entirely orthodox," and that she has not been excommunicated "so far." Nate Oman noted here in 2004 that his mother is her (Terry Williams') former visiting teacher, and that Williams "is not active in the church" as for 4-5 years before that time (2004). In that same link another poster quotes Williams as saying "I do not believe that there is only one true church." In this interview she describes the Church as "a corporation" which would have had a "subtle" and "invisible" "say in governance" of the United States if Mitt Romney had been elected president.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks.

So it would seem her standing with Kate Kelly and Krew should not come as a big surprise.

I knew she was a champion for liberal causes, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on one's commitment to the Church.

[Nofear]

Absolute drivel!

 

Lets not fall to the temptation to find explanations to God's ways for which he has not given an explanation, so that we can avoid the embarrassing official future denunciations of the same.

 

You know, lets learn from history.

 

I quite concur. teddyaware's position is a reverse sexism that I find rather disgusting -- whatever one's anecdotal observations. I place it as far beyond the mark as the Ordain Woman movement's position is the other way.

That said, I do believe God is currently using priesthood as a way of helping men honor and enrich their masculinity. But I have to be careful not to use that as a reason for if priesthood offices were also delegated to women I would make the analogous comment. So, it's not a particularly effective "reason".

[BCSpace]

Kate Kelly Letter of Defense to bishopric deciding her fate

 

She's still playing to her audience.  That alone should affirm or re-affirm any decision to excommunicate unless she makes a public about face and renounces her views and OW.

[Duncan]

Kate Kelly Letter of Defense to bishopric deciding her fate

 

She's still playing to her audience.  That alone should affirm or re-affirm any decision to excommunicate unless she makes a public about face and renounces her views and OW.

 

 

is her disciplinary council meeting tomorrow night?

[bluebell]

Kate Kelly Letter of Defense to bishopric deciding her fate

 

She's still playing to her audience.  That alone should affirm or re-affirm any decision to excommunicate unless she makes a public about face and renounces her views and OW.

 

I think what really get's me about this letter is that while she has no trouble at all sitting in judgment on the actions of the men she wrote the letter to (frankly telling them they are wrong and that they are not being charitable, or following the commandments and scriptures should they discipline her), she is upset that they have done that to her.

 

She uses her 'sincerity' as one big reason they should leave her alone but she won't consider that their are sincere in their actions as well.  

 

If sincerity means that you should be able to do whatever you want, that sword should cut both ways.   But in her world it doesn't seem to.

[Calm]

Chapter 13

Mormonism’s Odd Couple: The Motherhood-Priesthood Connection.

Did you just randomly chose a post to respond to because there is nothing in mine that equates motherhood with Priesthood or is addressed in your quote.

[Scott Lloyd]

This all makes me wonder why she thinks she has any relevant things to say from a member's perspective, if she doesn't believe in the church and isn't even active in it.

Apparently, Tempest-Williams has had a burr under her saddle for many years.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think what really get's me about this letter is that while she has no trouble at all sitting in judgment on the actions of the men she wrote the letter to (frankly telling them they are wrong and that they are not being charitable, or following the commandments and scriptures should they discipline her), she is upset that they have done that to her.

She uses her 'sincerity' as one big reason they should leave her alone but she won't consider that their are sincere in their actions as well.

If sincerity means that you should be able to do whatever you want, that sword should cut both ways. But in her world it doesn't seem to.

It's eloquent and touching in some respects, but in the end it's not so much a defense as an expression of defiance.

[Teancum]

You have misunderstood my post. "status" has more than one meaning, I am using state of being and not "level of fame, etc" unless it is preceded by " class".

I am not saying class status (as in how the world views someone as valuable or not) is important to you, even it appears you see it as important enough to discuss and that there is something to be gained by using such labels in this context. I can't tell why you chose to do so from what you wrote. It may or may not be because you are a class conscious person, it is irrelevant to my point. What is relevant is that you are apparently insisting that thestatus (as in state, not prestige) of being able to perform certain ordinaces must be so important to women that we and others must see ourselves as second class since we are not currently in the category of baptism ordinance performers.

But it is you who have defined class status as being tied to that category of potentially performing certain ordinances and not performing ordinaces and labeled those outside of that category as second class and I see nothing that compels anyone to accept that standard as inherent or having either intrinsic or reasoned value.

I can see some other variables as much better potential candidates for judging class status, but not being able to perform an ordinance where the performance is not salvific for the giver even if it is for the receiver...not seeing valid reasoning here, more of emotional judgment of how nice it is to be able to participate in God's giving such a wonderful covenant to an individual...but men are not part of that covenant and beneficiaries of its blessings anymore than the women who watch. Only our own baptism has that impact for us. Emotionally valuing that experience is fine for weighing what something means to you but for categorising half the membership as second class...I think that should be based on something more substantial...something that might prevent us from being in full fellowship or not have full access to the saving ordinances based solely on our gender.

It is insulting for you to presume to tell an entire category of individuals (LDS women) that we must be second class because we dont meet a standard you impose on us. It would be insulting for me to tell men they were second class because they can't participate in the really cool female initiatories. It is insulting for an American to tell Canadians they have a second class nation because they lack some attribute the individual finds very appealing in his own country, but that Canadians themselves don't value in the same way.

Of what value are those standards? Which should we give greater respect to it than our own standards that see ourselves as valued, first class members of our faith community? And biggest question is why should we alter our standards in such a way? Of what value is that to us?

It is insulting to just tell someone that, without justifying why we must find your definition so definitive that we will change our view as to see ouselves as having less value to our community than we currently view ourselves. To me it is comparable to telling a brunette sheis second class to a blonde or a computer tech that he is second class to a doctor. My response is second class in what meaningful way to me? I see no need to setup arbitrary standards that class how important people are to a community.

"I am happy though that you imply in your second second sentence above that because you see things differently that you are somehow above the fray and better than others. "

Where am I implying I am better than others for seeing things differently? My refusal to allow myself to be called second class based on an (as far as I can tell) artificially imposed standard of class differentiation has nothing to do with any internal sense of superiority, it is based on the logic of the argument not being either substantive or valid..at least not at this point.

"Yes indeed. Even though you are told you are not...you really are a second class citizen in the Kingdom of God.......rather sad isn't it?"

And it is insulting to claim I am too ------- (fill in whatever you think causes me to not be able to see the sad tragedy of my second class life along with a good majority of LDS women) to realise just how second class I am.***** Am I really a second class citizen if I consciously choose to fly second class because I believe the benefits of such limitations will provide me with much better long term value? If my current actions in no way limit my ability to achieve the purpose of the Kingdom of God, full participation in exaltation, oneness with God and all that means, eternal life and a fulness of joy I can start experiencing now, in what meaningful way can someone claim I am second class in God's Kingdom?

*****just as it would be insulting to tell someone they are too brainwashed by the standards of the world to know how blessed they are. People choose what is of value to them individually as well as being part of a community that sets categorisation standards for equality. Not all such standards are created equal, but just being different does not automatically demonstrate they are not appropriate for that particular community even if it might be inappropriate in another context.

Recognising that for many outsiders, our faith community doesn't treat women in the way they would as equals does not require I or our faith community use their standards in our own evaluation of standing.

I apologize for insulting you and others who may feel insulted by my comments.

[Teancum]

Has it ever dawned on you that the very reason why men hold the priesthood and preside in the Church is so that there will be an equality between the sexes? The combined facts that women seem to mature faster than men, have stronger innate senses of responsibility than most men, have greater inborn emotional breadth and strength than most men, have greater capacities to feel empathy and express compassion than most men, have greater wisdom and insight than most men, are more attuned to reality than most men, are more forgiving than most men, have the ability to bear children (the role of men in the biological process of bringing forth life is pitifully minimal by comparison), have a greater ability to lovingly bond with and wisely nurture their children than most men, and are, most assuredly, the crowning glory of God's creation (the woman was the last and greatest of God's progressively noble creations) are reasons enough to give men the priesthood so that they can be motivated and inspired to progress and not devolve into mere drones in the "hive" of humanity!

The only point I agree with above is the women have babies and men don't. The rest of your post is simply a gross subjective rambling that often LDS use to argue why men need the priesthood. The reality is some women innately have many of the attributes you list and some don't. Same for men. By t I will agree with you that most women I know are wonderful human beings.

[Teancum]

Tacenda, after a few years on boards like this, my experience is that people in a similar position to you and Dehlin aren't capable of being completely rational with themselves when it comes to church history. A lot of the problematic stuff in Church history is, well, speculation (did Joseph Smith consummate his marriage with Helen Mar Kimball?). A lot of people must want there to be issues because they jump to every single "bad" conclusion they possibly can. John Dehlin flat out ignores people who provide him with evidence that contradicts some of those conclusions and goes as far to allow interviewees to make claims that are not supported by the evidence with nothing but sympathy and nodding of the head. 

 

So honestly, after all this time, I am not sure what the Church should be apologizing for. Should they be apologizing for a Dehlinesque interpretation of Church history, when that interpretation is no more based in reality than the same old "widows need to be taken care of story?" Yet, I get the impression that that is exactly what you, John Dehlin, and others want. 

 

And even then, I am pretty sure that wont be enough.

Honestly it is you who are irrational. You would never accept or defend much of what JS did if you were not invested to believe he was a prophet and restored God's truth. You think people like Tacenda and myself who invested our hearts, might and minds into the LDS Church concluded that it may not be what it claimed in a light minded way. I defended it for years. But at least for me became indefensible. Indeed it seemed to me irrational to continue to do so.

[Teancum]

Kate Kelly Letter of Defense to bishopric deciding her fate

 

She's still playing to her audience.  That alone should affirm or re-affirm any decision to excommunicate unless she makes a public about face and renounces her views and OW.

You just must be pretty fired up about that prospect.

[ksfisher]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605558/How-LDS-Church-disciplinary-councils-work-changes-lives.html

Detailed look at church disciplinary councils.

Edited June 21, 2014 by ksfisher

[Teancum]

Kate Kelly Letter of Defense to bishopric deciding her fate

She's still playing to her audience. That alone should affirm or re-affirm any decision to excommunicate unless she makes a public about face and renounces her views and OW.

How was she playing to her audience? Because she publicized it? I thought the letter was pretty calm and reasonable. Course she did say she would not take down the site or stop publicly talking bout women being ordained. She probably is on her way out, The church cannot stand public dissidents any better Thant it could 20 years ago it seems. Edited June 21, 2014 by Teancum

[Teancum]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605558/How-LDS-Church-disciplinary-councils-work-changes-lives.html

Detailed look at church disciplinary councils.

You know thing are bad for the church image when it needs to publish and attempted feel good apologetic on excommunication. My guess is these stories have more to do with sin the alleged apostasy.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Teancum

[ksfisher]

You know thing are bad for the church image when it needs to publish and attempted feel good apologetic on excommunication. My guess is these stories have more to do with sin the alleged apostasy.

I had exactly the opposite reaction.

[juliann]

It's eloquent and touching in some respects, but in the end it's not so much a defense as an expression of defiance.

 

I found it very disappointing.  It struck me as a passive-aggressive attack on her leaders.  I really don't know where I stand as to the DC, but at each attack on her bishop I feel like he is the one who needs a "vigil."   Thinly disguised personal attacks in tandem with that Temple-Williams rape op, is more repellent than inspiring.  Again, I continue to look at the missed opportunity. I can only hope that this will create an even greater desire for church leaders to communicate with the more reasonable elements of feminism who are respectfully urging for more inclusion.

[Scott Lloyd]

You know thing are bad for the church image when it needs to publish and attempted feel good apologetic on excommunication. My guess is these stories have more to do with sin the alleged apostasy.

You seem contemptuous about this. Would you prefer that the public remain in the dark about this subject or dependent upon the one-sided renditions from bitter ex-members or cynical suppositions from ignorant outsiders? Edited June 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I found it very disappointing. It struck me as a passive-aggressive attack on her leaders. I really don't know where I stand as to the DC, but at each attack on her bishop I feel like he is the one who needs a "vigil." Thinly disguised personal attacks in tandem with that Temple-Williams rape op, is more repellent than inspiring. Again, I continue to look at the missed opportunity. I can only hope that this will create an even greater desire for church leaders to communicate with the more reasonable elements of feminism who are respectfully urging for more inclusion.

I agree with you that it seems passive-aggressive. Still, I felt genuinely sorry about what she stands to lose when I read about her background growing up in the Church, attending BYU, etc., and when I viewed the pictures.

I also feel sympathy for the bishopric members. This must be terribly wrenching for them.

[BCSpace]

Kate Kelly Letter of Defense to bishopric deciding her fate

 

She's still playing to her audience.  That alone should affirm or re-affirm any decision to excommunicate unless she makes a public about face and renounces her views and OW.

You just must be pretty fired up about that prospect.

 

 

Why must I?

Edited June 21, 2014 by BCSpace

[juliann]

I agree with you that it seems passive-aggressive. Still, I felt genuinely sorry about what she stands to lose when I read about her background growing up in the Church, attending BYU, etc., and when I viewed the pictures.

I also feel sympathy for the bishopric members. This must be terribly wrenching for them.

I didn't intend to downplay the tragedy of this for her....but I can see I did.