BCSpace Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I have come to the conclusion (and I could be wrong) that we are going to see more excommunications in the future for people doing things similar to Kelly and Dehlin. I am also sure that if this happens, eventually it will cause more and more currently active members to go in active or resign. I find this sad. But it may be necessary. On the other hand, not doing so could have the same effect; people getting discouraged about the Church not standing up for itself or...something. 1
Teancum Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I was going to comment about Kate Kelly's parting shot, but I could not think of a way to articulate my thoughts about it. Thank you for doing so.But sorry, I don't have anything that could make you be more hopeful. I think we have a fairly accurate measure of Kate Kelly: A good person in many ways, but increasingly misguided about and hostile to the Church. This should no longer be particularly surprising given her publicly-stated admiration for several excommunicated apostates, some of which whom she affiliates with directly and has aligned herself with against the Church.I truly hope she changes her stance.Thanks,-SmacYou have mentioned a number of times Kelly's affiliation with various ex'd "apostates." Why do you view this as such a negative? If I associate with a local member who was disciplined in order to extend fellowship does that reflect badly on me? 1
Wants2know Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Didn't Kelly state she was moving to Zimbabwe? Maybe she is not in an area with an organised stake or maybe her work has her moving around a lot.If you go to her site you can read the brief that defends her. It details all of her side. If all of it is true, I have to say it seems like she has been approaching her concerns with respect and appropriate diligence. It's an interesting, if long, read.
Wants2know Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Can a woman initiate an excommunication? Interestingly Kelly is going to be excommunicated by her former Bishop. But to excommunicate a man you need a higher authority. Well that sounds misogynistic to me.
Nofear Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Apparently the number of profiles on the Ordain Women site has multiplied in the past week more than at any other time. The Church has been cast into a rather difficult public relations scenario. From that perspective, if the Brethren asked your opinion, what do you think would be the best way to respond? For example, should the Brethren publically, formally state, "We inquired of the Lord about female ordination and the answer was [no/not right now]"*? Would that help? * Apparently they do not trust that this matter has already been explicitly discussed and inquired about. Pres. Oaks's talk wasn't direct enough but seen as male intrenchment for the status quo. EDIT: Nevermind... question being mostly discussed in the Vigil thread. Edited June 23, 2014 by Nofear
teddyaware Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 You have mentioned a number of times Kelly's affiliation with various ex'd "apostates." Why do you view this as such a negative? If I associate with a local member who was disciplined in order to extend fellowship does that reflect badly on me? Oh come on now! You're much too intelligent to not be able to discern that the two cases you compare are quite different. You grasped for straws on this one.
Calm Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 If I associate with a local member who was disciplined in order to extend fellowship does that reflect badly on me?I believe smac's concern is not that she is extending fellowship to her (he would applaud attempts to invite her as a friend or even to fellowship in hope of opening her heart again to the Church, but that she is listening to her for instruction on LDS doctrine, female ordination and possibly advice on how to promote their shared agendas…which may be too heavily influenced by an apostate's POV about the Church. Would you not find it problematic if a group took cues for their behaviour and opinions from someone who had been required to leave that group for her own behaviours and opinions and her attempts to promote and teach them to the group?
Calm Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Well that sounds misogynistic to me. It has to do with how the priesthood is organized under stake leadership, I believe. It is not that women don't rate as much attention from the higher ups.
bluebell Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Well that sounds misogynistic to me.It's not exactly true. It has to do with what, if any, priesthood a man holds. So people who hold no priesthood, or those men who hold the Aaronic priesthood, will deal with the bishop. Melchizedek priesthood holders will deal with the stake president.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 You have mentioned a number of times Kelly's affiliation with various ex'd "apostates." Why do you view this as such a negative? If I associate with a local member who was disciplined in order to extend fellowship does that reflect badly on me?There's a vast difference, as I'm sure you know, between "extending fellowship" to someone in the spirit of, e.g., 3 Nephi 18:32, and finding common cause with him or her in an apostate enterprise. In the first case, you are attempting to "light that person's candle"; in the second, you are inviting him or her to extinguish yours. 3
Sleeper Cell Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Well that sounds misogynistic to me. On the other hand, if I were embarrassed and ashamed of my conduct, I would want as few people as possible to know about it. I certainly would much rather confess my sins to a disciplinary council of 3 people than one composed of 15 people 2
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Ever? It won't ever call upon them to pass through divine misery and pain? Was the suffering of Jesus Christ true and holy? Was Abraham not commanded to sacrifice his son? "God will wrench your heart-strings." - Joseph Smith Doctrine & Covenants 132, a piece of true doctrine, illustrates the many miserable circumstances which Joseph Smith underwent, and told that such misery would give him divine experience. No, I don't think it will. We all suffer, of course. But if the source of suffering is your own faith, then something is being done wrong.
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Deferred gratification is a "repressive idea"? Pardon, but that sounds like a relic from the "turn on, tune in and drop out" thinking of the 1960s counter-culture. Asking people to be miserable in this life, reasoning that they will be happy in recompense in the afterlife, is what I think is repressive. Edited to add: But eariler, you said someone had "missed the point of faith." I'm wondering now about your concept of faith if you don't believe it involves, in large measure, the delay of momentary gratification of base desires with the expectation of some reward in the future for exercising such fortitude. I disagree that desires for love and family are base desires. Edit, sorry, just saw the note about staying on topic in this thread. Edited June 23, 2014 by Gray
Kenngo1969 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Ever? It [the gospel/faith] won't ever call upon them to pass through divine misery and pain? Was the suffering of Jesus Christ true and holy? Was Abraham not commanded to sacrifice his son? "God will wrench your heart-strings." - Joseph Smith Doctrine & Covenants 132, a piece of true doctrine, illustrates the many miserable circumstances which Joseph Smith underwent, and told that such misery would give him divine experience. No, I don't think it will. We all suffer, of course. But if the source of suffering is your own faith, then something is being done wrong. Christ, it would seem, disagrees. [Matthew 5] 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Or perhaps I’m misinterpreting or misapplying this scripture. Perhaps you could set me straight? 1
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 A bishop is a Melchizedek Priesthood Holder, the Melchizedek Priesthood was not conferred to people in ancient Israel, only the Aaronic. So you want to claim this is the equivalent, when that office did not even exist in that period.Makes no sense. They are compared as equivalent in D&C
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I think that is a point Gray has been arguing to those who do try to put modern day priesthood back into the Bible to prove women shouldn't have it. What he (she?) brings up is a modern day equivalency, which is a valid point. Thanks Juliann, that was the point I'm trying to make I'm a "he", by the way
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Christ, it would seem, disagrees. Or perhaps I’m misinterpreting or misapplying this scripture. Perhaps you could set me straight? Maybe we can take it to another thread - I think the mods want this one to stay on the original topic
eddie Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 They are compared as equivalent in D&C So a secular judge in ancient Israel held the Melchizedek Priesthood? I take it Asher Dan Grunis does as well (a judge on the Supreme Court of Israel.) A secular judge is not a bishop, he is a judge. http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Who-is-Supreme-Court-Justice-Asher-Dan-Grunis Or we could use non-LDS versions of the Bible to claim Phoebe was ordained to be a deacon, and that Junia was an apostle. (The KJV version says neither.)
Mystery Meat Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 “A friend . . . wished to know whether we had said that we considered an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the authorities of the Church apostasy. . . . We replied that we had not stated that an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the authorities constituted apostasy; for we could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from the authorities of the Church and yet not be an apostate; but we could not conceive of a man publishing those differences of opinion, and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them upon the people to produce division and strife, and to place the acts and counsels of the authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term. We further said that while a man might honestly differ in opinion from the authorities through a want of understanding, he had to be exceedingly careful how he acted in relation to such differences, or the adversary would take advantage of him and he would soon become imbued with the spirit of apostasy, and be found fighting against God and the authority which He had placed here to govern His Church.” (George Q. Cannon, “What Is Apostasy?” editorial inDeseret News, 3 Nov. 1869, p. 457.) 2
ERayR Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Interestingly Kelly is going to be excommunicated by her former Bishop. But to excommunicate a man you need a higher authority. Ye do err, not understanding the process. Not a higher authority but the authority which has direct responsibility. I have yet to witness a DC male or female where the stake president wasn't consulted.
ERayR Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Does the LDS Church really believe these people are a threat? Why not just ignore them? Lets say you run a humanitarian organization that helps needy people. You have in your organization a person, who donates their time, who disagrees with the way you are running the org and they start picketing for you to change what you do. This doesn't sway you so they then start gathering your staff and workers and reeducating them and causing dissension in your org. Do You ignore them or do you remove their shield of organizational protection. 2
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 So a secular judge in ancient Israel held the Melchizedek Priesthood? I take it Asher Dan Grunis does as well (a judge on the Supreme Court of Israel.) A secular judge is not a bishop, he is a judge. http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Who-is-Supreme-Court-Justice-Asher-Dan-Grunis Or we could use non-LDS versions of the Bible to claim Phoebe was ordained to be a deacon, and that Junia was an apostle. (The KJV version says neither.) I didn't claim anything about what judges in Israel did (although calling them "secular" strikes me as anachronistic). I'm just saying the D&C compares modern bishops with ancient judges in Israel
Nofear Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Melchizedek priesthood holders will deal with the stake president.And that only if excommunication is reasonably on the table as a potential result of the disciplinary proceedings. Edited June 23, 2014 by Nofear 1
Gray Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Ye do err, not understanding the process. Not a higher authority but the authority which has direct responsibility. I have yet to witness a DC male or female where the stake president wasn't consulted. Still, the final decision is the bishop's, for women. You need 15 Melchizedek priesthood holders, headed by the stake president, to excommunicate a man. It's quite a lot of effort to get the requisite number there, too. Often former bishops need to be called in to make sure the number is 15.
Recommended Posts