bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Well they verified that on their website.http://ordainwomen.org/ordain-women-sisters-in-silence-vigil-faq/Why did Kate/Ordain Women decide to take this story to the media?We are not being heard in other ways. Our requests for meetings have been consistently ignored. Michael Otterson, head of Public Affairs for the LDS Church, refused to intervene to prevent the court from going forward. Why would the head of the PA department intervene in a church disciplinary council? 1
Teancum Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Well, she just publicly accused her bishop of being "cowardly and unchristlike."And she also has repeatedly publicly demanded that women be ordained to the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice." She has also affiliated herself and her group with an excommunicated apostate. She has also orchestrated an adversarial PR campaign against the Church. She also trespassed onto and protested on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, in direct defiance of instructions of the Church and in violation of the laws of the land and the Church's basic property rights. She has repeatedly and deliberately scheduled events which are calculated to disrupt and distract from the Church's sacred convocations.I think it is fairly reasonable to say that most observant Latter-day Saints would find these actions "unreasonable" and "offensive."Thanks,-SmacThe fact that her FORMER bishop initiated a DC AFTER she moved and thus makes it difficult to participate is at least cowardly,IMO alll DCs are unchrislike. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Why would the head of the PA department intervene in a church disciplinary council? What's more interesting is that she thought he might intervene.
Thinking Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Why would the head of the PA department intervene in a church disciplinary council? My guess is that he was the only person at headquarters to whom she was ever allowed to talk.
Popular Post mormonnewb Posted June 12, 2014 Popular Post Posted June 12, 2014 And the love we have for you doesn't allow us to ignore the reality that whenever Mormonism comes into conflict with your trendy, populist, left-leaning, politically-correct worldly philosophies, it is always Mormonism that you throw under the bus.Regards,Pahoran Well, considering that Mormonism will likely change to fit my "populist, left-leaning, politically-correct worldly philosophies," as it did with polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, etc., I see no reason to hang my personal morality on that swinging shelf. At the end of the day, I will have to answer for MY actions -- how I fed the hungry, clothed the naked, healed the sick, visited those in prison (i.e., stood for those who couldn't stand for themselves). I won't be able to say, "Yes, I stood silent in the face of injustice but it's okay because my Church said so ... at least, until it changed its mind 30 years later." When the Church is right (and it usually is), I stand with it. And when it is wrong, I don't feel constrained to wait the 30-40 years until it gets the revelation to say so. I don't see that as throwing the Church under the bus, but rather loving it enough to not settle for it being less than it can be. 5
bdouglas Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) I used to listen to Dehlin back when I was first questioning the church's validity and wondered how he could know so much about the true history of the church and not come to the same conclusion I had. Certainly one of the nuttier things I've read on this forum. If only we all knew the real history of the church, we'd come round to the exact same conclusion you have come to, wouldn't we? Edited June 12, 2014 by bdouglas 1
Teancum Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I am a tad surprised Tom Phillips didn't make the cutYou can't ex someone who has had the second anointing/calling and election made sure.
bluebell Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 My guess is that he was the only person at headquarters to whom she was ever allowed to talk. It seems like she would have as much access to church leadership as the rest of us. Which is generally not much except by way of a letter, and even then you probably won't make it thru if it's something that should be handled by your local leadership (something like a disciplinary court, for example). So even if he is the only one she has access too, like jk said, it's weird that she would even think he might get involved, or that he even should.
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Contrary to a belief no doubt popular in certain quarters, the Church has no interest in silencing people or attempting to interrupt any communication between them and 'their flocks'. But to allow the propagation of false teachings to continue to occur under the veneer of faithfulness would be negligence on the part of the shepherds chosen by the Lord to watch over His flock.Kate Kelly has frequently bolstered her credentials and her advocacy of female ordination by referring to her status as a church member. For example, she presented her church membership as somehow giving her and her group some sort of special right to defy the Church and trespass onto and protest on Temple Square.There is rhetorical value in claiming membership in the Church. Kate Kelly recognizes this (having traded on her membership quite a bit to bolster her advocacy). The problem is that this value lies largely in the fact that membership in the Church takes effort. It means something. To be a Mormon is to be part of a community of faith. I think the Church has quite a bit of room for members who are at different places on the spectrum of faith. However, it is possible to exceed the boundaries of observance of the LDS faith (hence the concept of "apostasy").Has Kate Kelly engaged in actions which are troubling to other observant Latter-day Saints? Clearly, yes. Do her actions amount to "apostasy?" That is not for us to determine or speculate about.Thanks,-Smac
teddyaware Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) The fact that her FORMER bishop initiated a DC AFTER she moved and thus makes it difficult to participate is at least cowardly,IMO alll DCs are unchrislike.If all disciplinary councils are unchristlike, then Christ Himself is unchristlike. Edited June 12, 2014 by teddyaware 2
Duncan Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 You can't ex someone who has had the second anointing/calling and election made sure. who said? 1
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Well they verified that on their website.http://ordainwomen.org/ordain-women-sisters-in-silence-vigil-faq/Why did Kate/Ordain Women decide to take this story to the media?We are not being heard in other ways. Our requests for meetings have been consistently ignored. Michael Otterson, head of Public Affairs for the LDS Church, refused to intervene to prevent the court from going forward.Huh? The OW group intervened on behalf of Kate Kelly? And they sought help from Michael Otterson, head of Public Affairs for the Church, a church employee, to interfere in a local ecclesiastical issue?Do you understand how utterly inappropriate it would have been for Mr. Otterson to inject himself into that issue? How utterly inappropriate it was for you folks to ask him to interfere?What on earth is going on here?!-Smac
ksfisher Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 IMO alll DCs are unchrislike.Please explain. It would appear that you have no experience with disciplinary councils, or at least don't understand their purpose.
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 The fact that her FORMER bishop initiated a DC AFTER she moved and thus makes it difficult to participate is at least cowardly,IMO alll DCs are unchrislike.Well, he may not be her "former" bishop. It may be possible for a bishop to put a hold on the transfer of church records. If so, then he may have retained jurisdiction over Kate Kelly.This raises an interesting procedural question, doesn't it?Regarding accusing her bishop of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike," I find such accustions spectacularly inappropriate. We don't know him. We don't have the full story. And it is not within our province to render such judgments.Thanks,-Smac
sethpayne Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I just returned from a temple endowment session. With the lastest "presentation", it became clearer to me than ever before, that the role women is markedly instructed, if not codified, therein. And I don't see it as the role that you are looking for in other scripture. I didn't realize I was looking for any particular role. I have no dog in this particular debate.
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 If all disciplinary councils are unchristlike, then Christ Himself is unchristlike. I have been involved, to my liking, in far too many disciplinary councils, every single one of which has been characterised by genuine love, kindness, and an eagerness to pour out mercy, provide hope, and encourage faith in Christ and the glorious message of His atonement. I have knelt with humble, kind men as they have tearfully poured out their souls to God in a humble desire to know how to help a wayward soul, pleading for permission to err, if errors are to be made, on the side of mercy. I have spent hours in discussion as every conceivable avenue of potential good has been explored. And this has all come only after a bishop has exhausted himself in counselling. You speak truth, Teddy. 4
sethpayne Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Well, he may not be her "former" bishop. It may be possible for a bishop to put a hold on the transfer of church records. If so, then he may have retained jurisdiction over Kate Kelly.This raises an interesting procedural question, doesn't it?Regarding accusing her bishop of being "cowardly" and "unchristlike," I find such accustions spectacularly inappropriate. We don't know him. We don't have the full story. And it is not within our province to render such judgments.Thanks,-Smac But Smac, you don't know Kate Kelly either but you are more than happy to render judgment against her. 1
sethpayne Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 who said? John D. Lee was exed and he had his 2nd anointing. Granted it was reinstated several decades after his execution .... 1
smac97 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 But Smac, you don't know Kate Kelly either but you are more than happy to render judgment against her.I have never accused her of being "cowardly" or "unchristlike." I have criticized her actions, that's all (well, perhaps I have stepped over the line a few times, but I have retracted my comments when made aware of them).Thanks,-Smac
Daniel Peterson Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 I have been involved, to my liking, in far too many disciplinary councils, every single one of which has been characterised by genuine love, kindness, and an eagerness to pour out mercy, provide hope, and encourage faith in Christ and the glorious message of His atonement. I have knelt with humble, kind men as they have tearfully poured out their souls to God in a humble desire to know how to help a wayward soul, pleading for permission to err, if errors are to be made, on the side of mercy. I have spent hours in discussion as every conceivable avenue of potential good has been explored. And this has all come only after a bishop has exhausted himself in counselling. You speak truth, Teddy. That's been my experience, too. Incidentally, for what little it's worth, I've posted an item on my blog about the Kate Kelly/John Dehlin matter: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/the-pending-cases-of-john-dehlin-and-kate-kelly.html
sethpayne Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) There are prophetesses in the Church of Jesus Christ. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Prophetess is not a priesthood office. The women I spoke of earlier (auxiliary presidencies and women in Public Affairs) I would characterize as prophetesses. And I've just re-read the Book of Judges in the Old Testament. It was not a shining time in the history of the Israelite nation. Some judges (Samson is a prime example) were so corrupt that advice from any righteous person -- woman or man -- would have been all to the good. Hey Scott, Ok. So let's set Deborah aside for a moment. Huldah was obviously very important to Josiah. He looked to her to determine the Lord's position on the found book. Granted, that alone isn't sufficient to say she held "office" but, as you say, it is clear she was a prophetess (had the gift of prophecy). Having said that, I think it is interesting that Israel's kings all had their court prophet(s). Samuel and Isaiah, for example. Thus, I don't think it would be unreasonable to say Huldah occupied a similar role. The text gives no indication that her prophetic call was any different from male OT prophets -- and the same applies to Deborah. The only difference between Deborah/Huldah and Samuel/Isaiah -- at least when we talk about it in our modern LDS context -- is that we read *back* into the text our preconceptions about male/female roles. Anyway, clearly there isn't enough evidence one way or the other to draw any strong conclusions from the small bits of OT text we have. All I'm arguing is that the text, in itself, does not lend itself to the male/female priesthood dichotomy. That only appears when we bring in our own modern notions. IMO, at least. Seth Edited June 12, 2014 by sethpayne 2
sethpayne Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 That's been my experience, too. Incidentally, for what little it's worth, I've posted an item on my blog about the Kate Kelly/John Dehlin matter: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/the-pending-cases-of-john-dehlin-and-kate-kelly.html Don't click this link! Dan gets paid tons of money to peddle this nonsense at Patheos. Don't fall victim to his game.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Can you elaborate on what it means to keep one's covenants because my understanding was that we ALL fell short in meeting the Lord's standards? So is "true" church membership reserved for those who reach a certain percentage of compliance, say 80%? And if so, is that judged on an aggregate or individual basis? In other words, must I keep, say, the WoW 80% of the time or must I be in 80% compliance of ALL of the rules combined? And are there certain rules that count double or even triple? Seriously, I'm really interested in this concept of being a "true member" of the true church.If one can honestly give answers to the Temple Recommend questions indicating that one is worthy of a Temple Recommend, including whether one sustains President Thomas S. Monson as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and the only person on earth authorized to exercise all Priesthood keys and whether one sympathizes with any group whose teachings or practices are contrary to those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then I don't see any reason why he or she cannot remain in full fellowship and good standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Edited June 12, 2014 by Kenngo1969
Avatar4321 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Given what later happened with Marchant, I hope for her sake she is not taking him as a role model. What happened to him?
Recommended Posts