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

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Church issued a statement.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605988/Priesthood-blessings-equally-available-to-all-LDS-leaders-say-in-new-statement.html

You would think this would settle the issue. But unfortunately it won't.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church issued a statement.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605988/Priesthood-blessings-equally-available-to-all-LDS-leaders-say-in-new-statement.html

This statement was brought up yesterday in gospel doctrine class.

 

We are at that particular point in our study of the Old Testament where we take up the incident relative to the steadying of the ark. Someone commented on how remarkable it was that the lesson should occur at this particular time given the current news events at hand.

 

And lest anyone should wonder, there was no bashing -- or even mentioning by name -- of Kate Kelly or Ordained Women that transpired in the class, merely cognizance of the newly issued statement. Anytime the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a council issue a statement, I think it an appropriate thing to bring up in a Sunday School class, especially when it pertains so directly to the subject of the lesson. And we could hardly discuss the statement without a reference to what sparked it.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

This statement was brought up yesterday in gospel doctrine class.

 

We are at that particular point in our study of the Old Testament where we take up the incident relative to the steadying of the ark. Someone commented on how remarkable it was that the lesson should occur at this particular time given the current news events at hand.

 

And lest anyone should wonder, there was no bashing -- or even mentioning by name -- of Kate Kelly or Ordained Women that transpired in the class, merely cognizance of the newly issued statement. Anytime the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a council issues a statement, I think it an appropriate thing to bring up in a Sunday School class, especially when it pertains so directly to the subject of the lesson. And we could hardly discuss the statement without a reference to what sparked it.

yesterday our joint RS/Priesthood session was dedicated to the topic. I think it's nearly imperative that we discuss these issues at Church. Not just mentioned as part of the lesson but set it aside as a topic all on it's own.

[Senator]

This statement was brought up yesterday in gospel doctrine class.

 

We are at that particular point in our study of the Old Testament where we take up the incident relative to the steadying of the ark. Someone commented on how remarkable it was that the lesson should occur at this particular time given the current news events at hand.

 

And lest anyone should wonder, there was no bashing -- or even mentioning by name -- of Kate Kelly or Ordained Women that transpired in the class, merely cognizance of the newly issued statement. Anytime the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a council issues a statement, I think it an appropriate thing to bring up in a Sunday School class, especially when it pertains so directly to the subject of the lesson. And we could hardly discuss the statement without a reference to what sparked it.

 

Did anyone bring forth contrary opinions, or questions that might suggest some level of sympathy to "what sparked it"?

[Scott Lloyd]

Did anyone bring forth contrary opinions, or questions that might suggest some level of sympathy to "what sparked it"?

No.

 

It seemed we were all of one mind. Or we took the point in the lesson about ark steadying. Or both.

[Scott Lloyd]

You would think this would settle the issue. But unfortunately it won't.

It is quite momentous that the statement was issued with the imprimatur of all 15 men as a council. How often does that happen? The proclamation on the family and "The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles" are the last occasions I can think of, although there may have been more recent ones.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

No.

 

It seemed we were all of one mind. Or we took the point in the lesson about ark steadying. Or both.

Well at least according to those who did speak up.

 

Given the context of the environment, I can understand how one who may have had contrary opinions may not have felt it a safe place to voice them.

 

I wouldn't have spoken either.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Senator

[Scott Lloyd]

Well at least according to those who did speak up.

 

Given the context of the environment, I can understand how one who may have had contrary opinions may not have felt it a safe place to voice them.

 

I wouldn't have spoken either.

I looked around at the people in the classroom. Given what I know of them, I would have been surprised if any had felt to speak to the contrary.

 

I believe the attendees of our gospel doctrine class are fairly typical of active, believing members of the Church in general.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

I looked around at the people in the classroom. Given what I know of them, I would have been surprised if any had felt to speak to the contrary.

 

I believe the attendees of our gospel doctrine class are fairly typical of the Church in general.

I can think of at least four individuals in my GD class that I'm quite confident would be thinking differently to such a topic as presented.

Should I say that my GD class is fairly untypical of the church in general?

[Scott Lloyd]

I can think of at least four individuals in my GD class that I'm quite confident would be thinking differently to such a topic as presented.

Should I say that my GD class is fairly untypical of the church in general?

Depends on the size of your class; four people in my class would not be a very sizable portion of it.

 

And you'll note that, before you posted, I amended my post to say "active, believing members of the Church in general." So no, I don't see vocal opposition to a statement issued by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to be typical of such active, believing members.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

Depends on the size of your class; four people in my class would not be a very sizable portion of it.

 

And you'll note that, before you posted, I amended my post to say "active, believing members of the Church in general." So no, I don't see vocal opposition to a statement issued by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to be typical of such active, believing members.

Would questioning (excuse me, "asking questions") be considered vocal opposition to the statement?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Senator

[Scott Lloyd]

Would questioning (excuse me, "asking questions") be considered vocal opposition to the statement?

I think the point of the statement is that it would not be -- which is why I would be surprised if an active, believing member in my class opposed this statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

I think the point of the statement is that it would not be -- which is why I would be surprised if an active, believing member in my class opposed this statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

 

How about in regards to the issue "that sparked" it, and not the statement in particular?

[Scott Lloyd]

How about in regards to the issue "that sparked" it, and not the statement in particular?

The class discussion focused on the statement itself and the lesson content on ark steadying.

 

But if you read the statement, you'll note that it touches on the doctrine of the priesthood, although we really didn't get into that. Just the distinction between members who ask questions and those "who distance themselves from church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them," as delineated in the statement.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

The OW group has released a statement stating that they sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve:

 

Leaders in the Ordain Women movement, which is pushing to open the all-male Mormon priesthood, has affirmed in a statement that they "sustain the [church’s governing] First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" and that they hoped the top LDS authorities "will continue to respond directly to the needs and desires of church members and take their concerns and questions to God."

The OW comments came Sunday in response to Saturday’s statement by the three-member First Presidency and the 12 apostles spelling out the Utah-based faith’s position on female ordination — that both men and women have access to the priesthood’s "blessings," but only men can hold priesthood "offices."

The LDS leaders’ statement came in the wake of last week’s excommunication of OW founder Kate Kelly by her local lay leaders in Virginia for "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the church."

OW’s executive board noted that the LDS leaders’ message did not mention "why women cannot be ordained or that they will not be in the future" and repeated the request that Mormon higher-ups "prayerfully bring this question [of female ordination] before the Lord."

The women further noted that the statement "publicly discloses the official definition of apostasy from Church Handbook of Instructions [sic] Volume 1, a volume of church policy that is available to thousands of male leaders but restricted to only nine women in the church."

It is my understanding that the CHI is available to anyone who wants to read it, but that it is issued only to members of the bishopric and the stake presidency. Is that correct?

And I wonder why the OW group included a barb about the CHI in what otherwise appears to be a conciliatory statement.

 

The LDS officials defined apostasy as "repeatedly acting in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine."

In their response, OW leaders declared that they "do not meet any definition of apostasy."

I am curious why they think their public declarations about this are helpful.

 

"We affirm that we are not acting in opposition to the prophet or the church," their statement reads, and "have not taught false doctrine and do not meet any definition of apostasy."

Well, let's see...

• Kate Kelly and the OW group publicly defied direct written and verbal instructions from Church leaders and trespassed and protested on sacred ground during a sacred convocation. This was specifically referenced in one of the bulleted items in the bishop's letter to Kate Kelly.
• The OW group has been promulgating "Six Discussions" which are extremely critical of "patriarchy."  These discussions are specifically identified in the bishop's letter.
• These discussions include statements that male-only ordination, which is the Church's doctrinal position, as "bollocks" (an Anglo-Saxon word meaning literally "testicles," but used pejoratively as "nonsense" - Thanks for keepin' it classy, Ordain Women!).
• These discussions declare that "God is not the author of" male-only ordination.
• A person is quoted in these discussions as rejecting male only ordination (speaking to the Church): "I'm not buying what you're selling."
• These discussions declare that "(t)he women’s priesthood ordination ban itself is not scriptural."
• These discussions equate the Church's position on priesthood ordination with Jim Crow laws ("I don’t buy it in movie theaters, schools, water fountains, hospitals, government, laws, train cars, soda counters, or busses. I sure as heck don’t buy it in my church").
• In an interview with the Trib, Kate Kelly accused the Church of "showing classic behavior of a very aggressive serial abuser."
• Kate Kelly has also publicly accused her bishop, who qualifies as one of those "faithful leaders" referenced in the June 28 message, of being a liar, and of being "cowardly and unchristlike."

It is not for us to make determinations about Kate Kelly and the finding against her of apostasy. But it is also not for the OW group to make such determinations.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 30, 2014 by smac97

[awyatt]

It is not for us to make determinations about Kate Kelly and the finding against her of apostasy. But it is also not for the OW group to make such determinations.

And it is also worth noting that someone Sister Kelly apparently (or presumably) at one time sustained as bishop -- who, as part of that priesthood ordination, is called as a 'common judge in Israel' -- has found that her actions *do* meet the Church's definition of apostasy. So to say that they "do not meet any definition of apostasy" (emphasis added) is factually incorrect.

It will be interesting to see if the OW leadership will still sustain the FP if they ultimately uphold the bishop's judgment in the matter. (Sister Kelly has said she will be appealing. Appealing to the SP must be done within 30 days, and then his decision must be appealed to the FP within 30 days after that.)

-Allen

[smac97]

This just in re: John Dehlin:

A Mormon podcast host who fears he could be excommunicated for progressive views said Monday that a church leader has not yet made a decision on his fate. John Dehlin met Sunday with stake president Bryan King, who had sent him a letter asking if he wanted to resign from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or face a disciplinary council. Although Dehlin said he will not speak about the substance of the talk out of "respect for his decision-making process," he confirmed that King said he has not decided how to proceed and is praying about what steps to take next.

I appreciate Bro. Dehlin's posture vis a vis the disciplinary process. I think the above statement shows more decorum and respect than has been shown by others recently.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stone holm]

Br. Dehlin has been there before, and avoided discipline before.  It wouldn't do him any good credibility wise to get booted from the Church, on the other hand booting him from the Church would certainly send ripples through the Sunstone crowd.

[Scott Lloyd]

This just in re: John Dehlin:

I appreciate Bro. Dehlin's posture vis a vis the disciplinary process. I think the above statement shows more decorum and respect than has been shown by others recently.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was wondering what happened with Dehlin. This post is the first word I have gotten, in contrast to the outcome of Kate Kelly's hearing, which was all over Twitter and the Internet within moments.

 

Which goes to show: She that seeketh (the media spotlight) findeth it.

[Analytics]

One of the accusations against Kelly that has been repeated on this thread from page 1 to page 110 is that she is guilty of criminal tresspassing.  Have criminal charges been brought against her for this alleged crime?  If not, why not? 

[MorningStar]

One of the accusations against Kelly that has been repeated on this thread from page 1 to page 110 is that she is guilty of criminal tresspassing.  Have criminal charges been brought against her for this alleged crime?  If not, why not? 

It doesn't matter.  It's not a criminal issue.  She was openly defiant towards the church, deciding to protest on church grounds after being asked not to.  I can't imagine that the church would want to send someone to jail over it, but she certainly showed she was acting against the church. 

[smac97]

One of the accusations against Kelly that has been repeated on this thread from page 1 to page 110 is that she is guilty of criminal tresspassing.  Have criminal charges been brought against her for this alleged crime?  If not, why not?

I suspect because the Church does not want to press charges. I suspect that Kate Kelly and the OW group are contemptible enough that they would, if charged, exploit the situation to further contend against the Church. Indeed, I believe that they defied the Church and committed the trespass precisely because doing so put the Church in a no-win situation. The Church had the choice of having them arrested and pressing charges (either or both of which would give the OW group all sorts of unpleasant optics and soundbites to use against the Church) or not (in which case they would be free to do something not even the most virulent anti-Mormons could get away with: protesting on sacred ground).

Contemptible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

It doesn't matter.  It's not a criminal issue.

Perhaps it was. The relevant statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-206, Under Utah Criminal Code § 76-6-206, provides that criminal trespass involves an allegation that a person enters or remains unlawfully on property and does one of the following:

(a) the person enters or remains unlawfully on property and:

(i) intends to commit any crime, other than theft or a felony;

(ii) intends to cause injury or annoyance to any person or damage to any property, including the use of graffiti as defined in Section 76-6-107; or

(iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;

(b) knowing the defendant's presence or entry is unlawful, the defendant remains or enters on property as to which notice against entering is given by:

(i) posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or

(ii) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner; or

(iii) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders; or

(c ) the person enters a condominium unit in violation of Subsection 57-8-7(7).

 

The OW group was expressly instructed to not enter onto Temple Square.  So under Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-206(b)(ii), the OW group committed a criminal trespass on Temple Square.  This crime is a Class B misdemeanor, which is potentially punishable up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.00. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-3-204 and 76-3-301.

There are all sorts of crimes which are committed but never prosecuted. The OW group's trespass will almost certainly be one of those. But just because Kate Kelly and her compatriots will never be charged does not mean that the crime was not committed.

 

She was openly defiant towards the church, deciding to protest on church grounds after being asked not to.  I can't imagine that the church would want to send someone to jail over it, but she certainly showed she was acting against the church.

True. She committed the crime against the Church because she knew she would get away with it.

Contemptible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 1, 2014 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

True. She committed the crime against the Church because she knew she would get away with it.

Contemptible.

 

I'm tempted to call it diabolical, but given the etymology and definition of that word, I'll resist.

[stemelbow]

I'm tempted to call it diabolical, but given the etymology and definition of that word, I'll resist.

Whatever you want to label her intentions, it was harmless. really not worth mentioning at this point, if you ask me.