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

[Lachoneus]

In my limited experience, I'd say they're exactly like earthly councils because that is exactly what they are. Fallible humans, on planet earth, making councils. Doing their best, but still subject to the same biases and blind spots as everyone else. 

 

Having sat on such councils, I disagree with your characterization. I agree that those who sit on such councils are fallible humans. I disagree that these councils are "exactly like earthly councils."

[Buzzard]

Even if the church practiced “gender equality” the woman would still have a 50-50 chance of having a male bishop.  To clarify your position, would you then be OK with a male bishop making the final decision for a woman, or do you think there should be a male bishop for males and a female bishop for females?.  

If that ever happened, within a couple of decades, it would be about 80% or more female bishops. Don't believe me? Go to a convention of say, Episcopalians or our friends in the CofC. Count them up by gender and get back to me with the results. Of course, their numbers might be a bit skewed since they also ordain sexually active gays, but the point remains.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Buzzard

[USU78]

CFR that I claimed church councils are "particularly" subject to groupthink and bias. 

 

As SL pointed out, I make the point that the Church Council is as little likely to be subject to groupthink and bias as any group of humans is likely to be and for exactly the reasons SL stated.

 

Yet you ignore the reasons he stated and I implied in your condemnation of the councils.

 

Why?

 

And, yes, you are consistent in your condemnation of the Church councils on the local, and by implication at every, level:  this includes most especially the First Presidency, which is the ultimate "buck stops here" body on Earth.

Edited June 23, 2014 by USU78

[juliann]

Well that sounds misogynistic to me.  

 

I don't think the church has ever hated women. I have been shocked by the inflammatory rhetoric OW has used or aligned with even as they are congratulated on their respectfulness.  That is one area where they have definitely not advanced the discussion.

 

As for the women bashing on this thread, until men who hold all the goodies can recognize how awkward it is to be lecturing women that they are unrighteous to share the same desire for it, there can be no productive discussion.  Also, bashing OW always seem to lead into scripture bombing that addresses all women.  We are presenting a rather ugly picture of what Mormon men think about women to the world.  It is one thing to discuss where they went wrong but the curled lip tone that is so often present when talking about women isn't anything I want to see representing the church.

 

What has happened is OW has backed their denouncers into a corner of having to finally acknowledge that at least some changes are needed to avoid looking like Archie Bunker. This article http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58093764-78/women-church-think-ordain.html.csp admits that OW, who has been unfriendly to women who don't toe their line (another big mistake),  has now left a vacuum that will be filled by those very women. 

 

 

At one end, you have Mormon women calling for female admission into the all-male priesthood.

At the other, you have LDS women reticent of any changes to their place in the faith

But what about the masses — perhaps millions — in the middle?

 

These moderates may not desire priesthood status (polls show most LDS women don’t), but they’re hardly satisfied with the status quo.

 

 

Stack spends most of the time with the extreme end of those moderates, of course, but the point remains.  So those who have only defended their exclusive right to priesthood aren't very prepared, in my opinion. And I don't think the moderate middle, like me,  is a small group by any means.  We just don't tend to organize.

Edited June 23, 2014 by juliann

[juliann]

If that ever happened, within a couple of decades, it would be about 80% or more female bishops. Don't believe me? Go to a convention of say, Episcopalians or our friends in the CofC. Count them up by gender and get back to me with the results. Of course, their numbers might be a bit skewed since they also ordain sexually active gays, but the point remains.

Seriously? We are the Lord's church but if women taint it, we become Episcopalians?  The point doesn't remain because all you have proved is that the church is no longer Christ's church if women overstep the bounds you set for them.  And what do you say if a revelation did come and we were ordained? 

 

This is the stuff that really, really needs to stop.

[sethpayne]

Point taken, but please see my response in the post just below yours.

 

If you are saying that "bias" and "groupthink" do happen in  Church councils, but rarely, I don't think that sharply contradicts USU78's original statement, which is this:

 

Of course.  I think we are all in agreement. 

[Tacenda]

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/06/who-is-changing-doctrine.html

 

I wonder if this guy is next.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm hearing that there is a Twitter feed to the effect that there has been a ruling of excommunication.

 

I haven't checked it out yet. Perhaps someone more familiar with Twitter than I could do so.

 

Edited to add:

 

Looks like Cinepro already has this and started a separate thread.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Sleeper Cell]

In my limited experience, I'd say they're exactly like earthly councils because that is exactly what they are. Fallible humans, on planet earth, making councils. Doing their best, but still subject to the same biases and blind spots as everyone else. 

If church priesthood councils  are exactly like earthly councils, why would it par5ticularly matter which church you joined, or even whether you join a church at all?  Why not simply devote your time and talents to a secular charitable foundation whose policies are most in harmony with your own views on social justice?  For that matter, what good is the priesthood, apart from having earthly power and authority in an earthly organization?  

[Scott Lloyd]

As SL pointed out, I make the point that the Church Council is as little likely to be subject to groupthink and bias as any group of humans is likely to be and for exactly the reasons SL stated.

 

Yet you ignore the reasons he stated and I implied in your condemnation of the councils.

 

Why?

 

And, yes, you are consistent in your condemnation of the Church councils on the local, and by implication at every, level:  this includes most especially the First Presidency, which is the ultimate "buck stops here" body on Earth.

If there is groupthink, it is God-engendered groupthink.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

Why thank you for the compliment about intelligence!  First one I have received here lately. 

[Duncan]

Something i've been thinking about in connection wit this SCMC is people complain how out of touch with reality the GA's are yet they also complain when they find out the SCMC is in existence and they want to know what is really going on. It's like a situation in Alberta a few years back now where a food plant was contaminated and then there was a big whoop about people asking "where was the Gov't in all this? why weren't there more inspectors?" yet before this all hit the fan the plant didn't want gov't inspectors and didn't want people from getting too involved in the day to day operation. They can't have it both ways, do we want them there or don't we? Just a thought!

Edited June 23, 2014 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

Something i've been thinking about in connection wit this SCMC is people complain how out of touch with reality the GA's are yet they also complain when they find out the SCMC is in existence and they want to know what is really going on. It's like a situation in Alberta a few years back now where a food plant was contaminated and then there was a big whoop about people asking "where was the Gov't in all this? why weren't there more inspectors?" yet before this all hit the fan the plant didn't want gov't inspectors and didn't want people from getting too involved in the day to day operation. They can't have it both ways, do we want them there or don't we? Just a thought!

They can be in touch without gathering questionable material about people. Indeed, the perception, generally, is they are in touch because they carry special inspiration, rather than because they read everyone's blog posts.

Edited June 23, 2014 by stemelbow

[Stone holm]

Kate Kelly lost my support when she likened the Church to a serial abuser. That was overly harsh feminist lingo.

[mormonnewb]

Kate Kelly lost my support when she likened the Church to a serial abuser. That was overly harsh feminist lingo.

 

Not my favorite quote of hers, but if I had just being thrown out of the only community I had ever known, I might not respond charitably at first either.  In fact, I've responded MUCH worse on this board in the face of far less stinging rebukes, so I'm going to let that one slide.

[Bikeemikey]

Kate Kelly lost my support when she likened the Church to a serial abuser. That was overly harsh feminist lingo.

 

She never had my support... but I did support her right to be in the church even with a differing set of beliefs and values to my own... 

 

You don't have to support the individual, or even their specific conversation, in order to support the importance of being capable of conversation.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

I did not support OW's tactics, nor was I certain that anyone should be advocating a specific resolution of resolving the obvious inequality, but I had always supported their right to speak out and even to be critical of certain GA statements -- but analogizing the Church to a serial abuser was a step too far for me, and I think for anyone invested in the Church.

[ERayR]

Not my favorite quote of hers, but if I had just being thrown out of the only community I had ever known, I might not respond charitably at first either.  In fact, I've responded MUCH worse on this board in the face of far less stinging rebukes, so I'm going to let that one slide.

 

She was not thrown out.  She walked out on her own, head high, shouting defiance.

[Gray]

Having sat on such councils, I disagree with your characterization. I agree that those who sit on such councils are fallible humans. I disagree that these councils are "exactly like earthly councils."

 

I sit on such councils 6 times a month, and I'd say they're earthly councils by definition. I have yet to see any angels or cherubim in attendance, but if that happens I'll definitely take note!

[Gray]

As SL pointed out, I make the point that the Church Council is as little likely to be subject to groupthink and bias as any group of humans is likely to be and for exactly the reasons SL stated.

 

Yet you ignore the reasons he stated and I implied in your condemnation of the councils.

 

Why?

 

And, yes, you are consistent in your condemnation of the Church councils on the local, and by implication at every, level:  this includes most especially the First Presidency, which is the ultimate "buck stops here" body on Earth.

 

I take it that by this you acknowledge I never claimed church councils are particularly subject to group think and bias.

 

Why do you think it is a condemnation of a council to admit all of them are run by fallible humans, and all of them subject to the normal biases inherent in human psychology? 

 

I think you're coming at this with some unfounded assumptions - the kinds of assumptions that Michael Ash points out often lead to "shaken faith syndrome". No one on earth is super human, not even a prophet. 

[Gray]

If church priesthood councils  are exactly like earthly councils, why would it par5ticularly matter which church you joined, or even whether you join a church at all?  Why not simply devote your time and talents to a secular charitable foundation whose policies are most in harmony with your own views on social justice?  For that matter, what good is the priesthood, apart from having earthly power and authority in an earthly organization?  

 

I'm not sure if anyone has ever joined the LDS church because they love the various administrative councils. They are to be endured as necessary, but they're definitely not a selling point. The main selling point of the LDS church is the goodness of its people, and the strength of its ideals.

[ERayR]

I sit on such councils 6 times a month, and I'd say they're earthly councils by definition. I have yet to see any angels or cherubim in attendance, but if that happens I'll definitely take note!

 

I take it that by this you acknowledge I never claimed church councils are particularly subject to group think and bias.

 

Why do you think it is a condemnation of a council to admit all of them are run by fallible humans, and all of them subject to the normal biases inherent in human psychology? 

 

I think you're coming at this with some unfounded assumptions - the kinds of assumptions that Michael Ash points out often lead to "shaken faith syndrome". No one on earth is super human, not even a prophet. 

 

By this reasoning Church leadership should simply be ceremonial as anything they do is likely to be wrong. 

[ERayR]

I'm not sure if anyone has ever joined the LDS church because they love the various administrative councils. They are to be endured as necessary, but they're definitely not a selling point. The main selling point of the LDS church is the goodness of its people, and the strength of its ideals.

 

How long would those ideals have any strength without leadership councils which you say is filled with error.

[Gray]

By this reasoning Church leadership should simply be ceremonial as anything they do is likely to be wrong. 

 

Anything any of us does is likely to be wrong. It's the human condition. 

[Gray]

How long would those ideals have any strength without leadership councils which you say is filled with error.

 

All human endeavors, even the most noble, are filled with error. We tend to sort it out over the course of generations. As a species, we're very slow learners. At least that's my observation. 

Edited June 24, 2014 by Gray