Vigils For Sister Kelly Tonight.

[Zakuska]

I find it bazar that they are fighting for something they already have.  Apparently they didn't listen very well when they visited the House of the Lord, if they ever did. Why wear the robes if your not a member?

Edited June 23, 2014 by Zakuska

[smac97]

Hi Smac

You and I often don't agree but this post I think was very well thought out and fair.

I still am not sure how I feel about Kate Kelly. Understanding how the church operates I can see why she is where she is. But it also seems to me that she started out fairly respectful.

Well, not really. She started out by publicly demanding the priesthood and telling the media that "nothing less will suffice." She started out by deliberately scheduling the OW's founding event to conflict with and distract from the Church's sacred convocation. She invited an excommunicated apostate to be a key speaker at that event and to participate in a panel discussion at that event.  She started out by staging a public protest against the Church, again with the specific intention to distract from and disrupt the Church's sacred convocation.

Kate Kelly has been abrasive and adversarial against her Church from day one.

 

Her group asked numerous times for face to face meetings to present a request that the LDS leaders be prayerful about the issue. She was ignored.

First, I am not persuaded that she was "ignored." Frankly, I don't think the OW group is a trustworthy source in terms of getting the whole story on its interactions with the Church.

Second, I am not persuaded that the OW group is somehow entitled to face to face meetings with the Brethren. I don't mean that as a slight against them, only that the Brethren cannot be expected to acquiesce to every request they receive for specific attention, right? So is there anything about the OW group's request that set it apart from the many other requests that the Church's leaders receive? Not that I can see. On the other hand, was there anything about the OW group's request which perhaps made their request less likely to be granted? It appears so. The Church has gone on record stating the LDS officials "are not willing to engage with 'more extreme groups,' which 'make nonnegotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the church can’t possibly accept.'" It appears clear that this is a reference to the OW group (though maybe not an exclusive reference). So the OW group was not "ignored." Their request was denied. And given the group's rhetoric, I think the denial was understandable.

Third, I think it is exceedingly inappropriate for Church members to present doctrinal demands to the Brethren. That is what the OW group has tried to do, and it has not turned out well. And that is their fault.  I am reminded of this quote by Pres. John Taylor:

 

“We have more or less of the principles of insubordination among us. But there is a principle associated with the kingdom of God that recognizes God in all things, and that recognizes the priesthood in all things, and those who do not do it had better repent or they will come to a stand very quickly; I tell you that in the name of the Lord. Do not think you are wise and that you can manage and manipulate the priesthood, for you cannot do it. God must manage, regulate, dictate, and stand at the head, and every man in his place. The ark of God does not need steadying, especially by incompetent men without revelation and without knowledge of the kingdom of God and its laws. It is a great work that we are engaged in, and it is for us to prepare ourselves for the labor before us, and to acknowledge God, his authority, his law and his priesthood in all things.” (John Taylor, Gospel Kingdom, p. 166.)

I am persuaded that the Brethren are guided by revelation, and that it is not the place of self-selected Church members to request/demand meetings with the Brethren to present demands for doctrinal changes about the Priesthood.

 

I wonder if someone at say the level of seventy had met with the group and talked openly about gender issues and even said the leaders do pray about such things if the tide would have turned differently.

Or not. The OW group is not trustworthy. They turn everything they touch into a media circus. Why on earth would the Church want to given the OW group added legitimacy by meeting with them? A recent article by Ashley Isaacson Woolley sums things up on this point fairly well:

 

As an LDS woman who welcomes efforts to address women’s concerns in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I find Ordain Women counterproductive.

As an LDS woman who welcomes efforts to address women’s concerns in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I find Ordain Women counterproductive. Whatever its original intent, it ironically demeans Mormon women as well as men and hinders progress on women’s issues.

One example is Ordain Women's upcoming “Sisters in Silence” candlelight vigils, staged outside LDS meetinghouses, at which Ordain Women instructs individuals to repeat phrases like, “For my sisters who have no voice in the church, I will not be silent.”

I am not voiceless in the LDS Church, I do not need them to speak for me, and I personally find demeaning the implication that Mormon women are oppressed and cowardly if they do not share Ordain Women’s views or choose to deal with concerns by other means. Ordain Women also invites a caricature of Mormon men and leaders as sexist and oppressive, or as their founder put it, “cowardly and un-Christlike.” Even if many supporters of Ordain Women understand and respect their fellow Mormons, the national media whose spotlight they have sought does not, and draws an inaccurate and unfavorable picture.

Beyond the threat to Mormon dignity is the harm done by Ordain Women to the very cause it claims to support — women’s well-being in the church. The church seems to have begun a deliberate process of addressing gender issues long before Ordain Women appeared, with changes to certain policies regarding missionary service and women’s visibility, but now this group puts the church between a rock and a hard place.

On one hand, any change on gender issues will be credited to Ordain Women, which would be inaccurate and set the devastating precedent that controversial publicity-seeking interest groups are an effective way to make the church conform to one’s personal views (Ordain Women draws a false parallel with events leading to past changes in the church, a discussion for another time). On the other hand, the church may hesitate to make changes to avoid appearing bullied or shamed by Ordain Women.

Ordain Women has created a similar conundrum on the issue of church discipline by nurturing the narrative that they are singled out and victimized for questioning the church. If Ordain Women leaders are disciplined, the message some take away is that any discussion of difficult issues in the church is unwelcome. That interpretation fails to recognize the nuances of the situation (for example, Ordain Women seems not to want to discuss but to impose, does not ask questions as much as claim to have answers), but that is how it will be perceived by those who paint with a broad brush. On the other hand, if the church does nothing to identify boundaries, then Ordain Women continues to undermine the church’s efforts in these areas.

This "rock and a hard place" conundrum created by the OW group was, I think, entirely foreseeable. So much so that I cannot help but think it was intentional. And if it was, then the OW group has been operating in bad faith. And if so, then the Church has been wise to not engage it.

 

I don't know many women who want the priesthood but I know many who would accept it if it were offered.

Well, that wouldn't be the way it would work. LDS men are expected to be ordained to the priesthood. That is how the Church functions. Full activity in the Church requires it. So if the priesthood was extended to observant and faithful LDS women, they would be more or less obligated to receive it (just as LDS men are so obligated).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

With the caveat that when they ask the only acceptable answer is yes. 

 

Heh.  I am reminded of this quote from The Godfather:

 

Don Corleone: You look terrible. I want you to eat, I want you to rest well. And a month from now this Hollywood big shot's gonna give you what you want.

 

Johnny Fontane: Too late. They start shooting in a week.

 

Don Corleone: I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse. Okay? I want you to leave it all to me. Go on, go back to the party.

 

That's pretty much what the OW group has tried to do: Give the Church an offer (female ordination) it can't refuse ("and nothing less will suffice").  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

I wonder if someone at say the level of seventy had met with the group and talked openly about gender issues and even said the leaders do pray about such things if the tide would have turned differently.

 

I think one can extrapolate what happened at the level that they did encounter (talking with Ruth Todd and Kim Farah) and how they portrayed that and pretty much every other engagement to figure out how they would have responded to meeting with a seventy.

 

They have been very, very consistent in all their presentations of interactions with church people.  Why would they change dramatically because of a perceived stepping up in 'rank'?

[Avatar4321]

I believe faithful LDS women would accept the priesthood if we were called to hold it, but I would never demand it.  I want whatever the Lord wants. 

 

It's how we all should be. We don't demand callings to certain offices or positions but if we are called we serve with diligence

Edited June 23, 2014 by Avatar4321

[Calm]

It's how we all should be. We do demand callings to certain offices or positions but if we are called we serve with diligence

"do"….hummm….I think you mean "don't"...

[Avatar4321]

In the midst churning debate, there is one indisputable fact: And that fact is that exalted women who inherit  the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom are going to be anointed to priestesses unto God. If someone is ever able to authoritatively and definitively explain what the true nature of this priestesshood is, then this seemingly endless and too often acrimonious debate will go a long way toward being settled. The following quote may begin to shed some possible light on the this very subject:

Women do not have the priesthood conferred upon them and are not ordained to offices therein, but they are entitled to all priesthood blessings. Those women who go on to their exaltation, ruling and reigning with husbands who are kings and priests, will themselves be queens and priestesses. They will hold positions of power, authority, and preferment in eternity. (Bruce R. McConkie)

 

Some pertinent questions:

 

1 Is this promised priestesshood precisely one and the same thing as the holy priesthood now held by men?

 

2 In some significant ways, will the authority of the priestesshood be different from the priesthood authority now held by men?

 

3 Will this promised priestesshood confer power and authority on women that will enable them to preside in the highest counsels of the Church?

 

4 Will the women who hold this promised priestesshood compose an organization on a sort of parallel line of authority with the priesthood but not be precisely the same thing?

 

5 Will the promised priestesshood empower women to preside, but only over their own spirit children in the celestial world?

 

The priestesshood promised to women would seem to be a good, wise and even productive choice on which to focus this discussion. But do I expect the participants on this board to focus upon this promised priestesshood  -- something we actually know for certain is going to become a future reality? Or are they going to go back and concentrate only on the endless, unproductive and even destructive debate concerning women being ordained to the same priesthood now held by men? Well of course not!

 

I was wondering when someone would bring up the priests and priestesses promise. It should make us question more. 

 

I think when we are promised to be priests and priestesses, we are being told about our position in the orders of the priesthood, not the offices. It's the orders of the Priesthood that we receive power. Those come through the covenants we make as we go through ordinances for ourselves and live righteously. Offices in the priesthood are something completely different.

 

My knowledge in these areas are limited so until the Lord teaches me more, I can't say anything, and quite frankly probably wont be able to when He does teach me more. Just remember there is a difference between authority and power. 

[Avatar4321]

"do"….hummm….I think you mean "don't"...

 

fixed

[Avatar4321]

Btw I think we should be praying for her eternal well being regardless of what happens at any council

[Tacenda]

Hi Smac

You and I often don't agree but this post I think was very well thought out and fair.

I still am not sure how I feel about Kate Kelly. Understanding how the church operates I can see why she is where she is. But it also seems to me that she started out fairly respectful. Her group asked numerous times for face to face meetings to present a request that the LDS leaders be prayerful about the issue. She was ignored. PA sent a few letters and that is it. I wonder if someone at say the level of seventy had met with the group and talked openly about gender issues and even said the leaders do pray about such things if the tide would have turned differently.

I don't know many women who want the priesthood but I know many who would accept it if it were offered.

Also to Bsix, keep in mind Section 84 tells us we (men) at least should seek after the priesthood. I am not sure why you think desiring the priesthood disqualifies someone from it,

Ditto, especially on Smacs fair and well thought out post.

[why me]

I think that there is a bigger question here. Should public pressure be allowed to interfere with a church court decision? For example, since there is lds public support for kate kelly as she faced her court date, Should that demonstration influence the brethern who will make the decision, especially if it seems that the person is cleared. Where is the lord in all this?

 

If it is seen that the court made their decision based on public pressure it would mock the all process of the bishop's court. I certainly would lose faith in it. Likewise for john's case. And then if my friend were excommunicated, disfellowshiped, or put on probation for his or her apostacy sins, I would feel that they were a little cheated because they lacked public pressure.

 

So, the question is: should public pressure influence lds court procedures and if it does seem to influence the bishop's court, what does this mean for the process?

Edited June 23, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

Since it won't be released why they made the decision, the decision to believe it was public pressured, uninspired, and unfair will be solely yours if you choose to think that.

[smac97]

I think that there is a bigger question here. Should public pressure be allowed to interfere with a church court decision?

Not really, no. The "public pressure" in this case amounts to letters written by Kate Kelly supporters. I suspect they have no information or insights not already available to Kate Kelly's bishopric, and instead are simply writing because they agree with her or because they want to talk about Kate Kelly as a person (her "character").

In legal cases, "character witnesses" are only allowed to testify (and therefore have an evidentiary effect on the factfinder) if the accused's character is at issue in the litigation. In the present case, Kate Kelly is charged with apostasy. While that is a somewhat subjective term, the factfinders (the bishop and his counselors) are not really making a determination of Kate Kelly's character, and are instead evaluating her statements and actions. Her "character" may play into that somewhat. Perhaps there is value in reviewing character evidence insofar as such evidence could affect the bishopric's assessment of Kate Kelly's intent or motive. However, I suspect the letters will not be given much, if any, attention.

For example, since there is lds public support for kate kelly as she faced her court date, Should that demonstration influence the brethern who will make the decision, especially if it seems that the person is cleared. Where is the lord in all this?

The Lord is, I hope and believe, guiding the bishopric members who are shouldering this unpleasant task, and whose burden has become much heavier and unpleasant due to the repellant and unseemly actions of Kate Kelly.

If it is seen that the court made their decision based on public pressure it would mock the all process of the bishop's court. I certainly would lose faith in it. Likewise for john's case. And then if my friend were excommunicated, disfellowshiped, or put on probation for his or her apostacy sins, I would feel that they were a little cheated because they lacked public pressure.

 

So, the question is: should public pressure influence lds court procedures and if it does seem to influence the bishop's court, what does this mean for the process?

Public pressure should not play any substantive role. The bishop and his counselors should seek to do right and to discern the will of God and follow it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

Not really, no. The "public pressure" in this case amounts to letters written by Kate Kelly supporters. I suspect they have no information or insights not already available to Kate Kelly's bishopric, and instead are simply writing because they agree with her or because they want to talk about Kate Kelly as a person (her "character").

In legal cases, "character witnesses" are only allowed to testify (and therefore have an evidentiary effect on the factfinder) if the accused's character is at issue in the litigation. In the present case, Kate Kelly is charged with apostasy. While that is a somewhat subjective term, the factfinders (the bishop and his counselors) are not really making a determination of Kate Kelly's character, and are instead evaluating her statements and actions. Her "character" may play into that somewhat. Perhaps there is value in reviewing character evidence insofar as such evidence could affect the bishopric's assessment of Kate Kelly's intent or motive. However, I suspect the letters will not be given much, if any, attention.

The Lord is, I hope and believe, guiding the bishopric members who are shouldering this unpleasant task, and whose burden has become much heavier and unpleasant due to the repellant and unseemly actions of Kate Kelly.

Public pressure should not play any substantive role. The bishop and his counselors should seek to do right and to discern the will of God and follow it.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are absolutely right. And this should be known to the people who were doing their public vigil for her. Reading critic boards, they are already mocking the procedure of coming to no decision on sunday and waiting for revelation which they interpret as calling salt lake. I hope that whatever decision is made it is seen as coming from god and not from men. I think that there is going to be a fine line here if no discipline is given. The critics are going to make much hay regardless of the decision.

 

Cal, you are right about it being my decision. But if many would feel that the decision was done because of public pressure it would not be good for the church. The reason for the vigil was to influence the decision both at the local level and with salt lake. There was no other reason for such a vigil than to be of influence in support of kate. IMO, if kate is not disciplined, OW will claim a victory and thank all their supporters for their help in influencing the decision. In any case, it is a win-win for OW. They galvanized their support, sowed debate and contention on the lds boards and lds critic boards had much to write about and OW got immense publicity for their cause.

 

I am not being a nanny but a chess player calculating just where the game could be heading.

Edited June 23, 2014 by why me

[Wants2know]

In other words, “separate but equal.”  

Yes.  And these are almost Dallin Oaks precise words, without looking I think he,said "separate but different".

[Wants2know]

The more I am reading on these boards the more I'm feeling for Sister Kelly.  There is such a negative association with her speaking out, I mean, apostasy?  Really?  She grew up in the church, served a mission, wed in the temple, has made every effort to be open about her questions with her local leadership...  publicly states her love of the Gospel... and she is being excommunicated?  

[Calm]

The more I am reading on these boards the more I'm feeling for Sister Kelly.  There is such a negative association with her speaking out, I mean, apostasy?  Really?  She grew up in the church, served a mission, wed in the temple, has made every effort to be open about her questions with her local leadership...  publicly states her love of the Gospel... and she is being excommunicated?

We don't know yet, there are a lot of choices including no action.

How long have you been following what she has been doing.

I personally feel she crossed a line (whether it is apostasy or not I don't know) when OW created six discussions which are in essence missionary discussions for their goals. I have read some of it, especially the intro and the first lesson and while it may convert people to the idea that women need to be ordain, the most likely result will be a conversion to the idea that the Church is an out of date old man's club which will stifle all women's voices and stunt their growth. And these lessons are intended to be actively proselyted among members, using communication options built upon confidential ward and stake lists that are to be used for church purposes and/or with clearance first. They are setting up an independent teaching organization within the church that is not the church, that promotes ideas our leaders have clearly stated are not doctrinal and they promote a lack of trust in those leaders...this justifying any action needed to meet their goals.

And I find all those methods problematic even while having sympathy for their situation and desires to address the needs of certain of their sisters...but only in their way. There seems no intent to work with others to find solutions since they already know what is needed. Others may choose to do the "right thing" and work for them, but it is very all or nothing as demonstrated by their mistreatment of moderate feminist voices that have been working at this much longer than they have (with success IMO) both in and out of the Church.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Your first statement may not be too far off the mark. The Pew Research Center reports that 95% of Mormon women with a "high" degree of religious committment disagree with female priesthood ordination.

 

As for you sleeping on the couch...that is between you, your wife, and the couch.

 

Clever exchanges aside. The fact remains that Sister Kelly and her fellow dissidents of the Ordain Women movement are acting in ways that are heterodoxical to force a change they want. For them to hold the priesthood is inconsistent with LDS theology...even if they somehow got their wish.

 

Regards,

 

Six

Although I disagree with female ordination to the Priesthood- I believe you are misinterpreting the poll results. I believe it better refelcts their attitude towards the manner in which females ordination is being pursued currently. If Pres. Monson were to come out with a revelation giving females the Priesthood, I highly doubt these women would say "No thanks, we are against female ordination."

[changed]

The more I am reading on these boards the more I'm feeling for Sister Kelly.  There is such a negative association with her speaking out, I mean, apostasy?  Really?  She grew up in the church, served a mission, wed in the temple, has made every effort to be open about her questions with her local leadership...  publicly states her love of the Gospel... and she is being excommunicated?  

  The negative comments are coming from Kelly, she has continually misrepresented and badmouthed good, honest people in the church.  She publicly bashes volunteers, both men and women, with  a "holier than thou" condescending attitude.  She refuses to listen to anyone, she is not asking questions, she is demanding that everyone conform to her false reality.   

Let's be very clear, Kelley is not asking questions, she believes she already has all of the answers, this is not questioning, this is criticizing.  

Edited June 23, 2014 by changed

[Stone holm]

Although I disagree with female ordination to the Priesthood- I believe you are misinterpreting the poll results. I believe it better refelcts their attitude towards the manner in which females ordination is being pursued currently. If Pres. Monson were to come out with a revelation giving females the Priesthood, I highly doubt these women would say "No thanks, we are against female ordination."

Nothing surprising about a poll would anyone really believe that a large percentage of faithful Mormon women, or men for that matter, would support doing something against what the First Presidency said shouldn't happen and is said by them to be against the doctrine of the Church? It's the silliest argument I have ever heard.

[Calm]

Although I disagree with female ordination to the Priesthood- I believe you are misinterpreting the poll results. I believe it better refelcts their attitude towards the manner in which females ordination is being pursued currently. If Pres. Monson were to come out with a revelation giving females the Priesthood, I highly doubt these women would say "No thanks, we are against female ordination."

I believe the research was done significantly before the appearance of OW.  I think it is clear that there is a very high percentage of LDS women who do not see female ordination as either necessary or desirable, though if the Lord announced that is what he wanted in his Church they would earnestly step up.  The greatest reason they probably don't want it is because they believe God means to have it this way and they wish to be obedient to God's Will.

[Calm]

  The negative comments are coming from Kelly,

 

While negative comments are coming from Kelly, there are plenty coming from the other side as well, labeling them as apostates from the get go, questioning their faithfulness of wanting to be men, power hungry, etc.

[Duncan]

The more I am reading on these boards the more I'm feeling for Sister Kelly.  There is such a negative association with her speaking out, I mean, apostasy?  Really?  She grew up in the church, served a mission, wed in the temple, has made every effort to be open about her questions with her local leadership...  publicly states her love of the Gospel... and she is being excommunicated?  

 

do you know if she is on record for actually asking questions? do you know what they are?

[ERayR]

And have priesthood quorums that compete with each other based on gender?

 

Still have the male priesthood quorums do home teaching, but have the female priesthood quorums just minister to women?

 

And again, most importantly, make priesthood ordination optional for women?

 

If you think logically about it, it would simply require a massive redefinition of what priesthood means if we were to treat ordained women in any way differently than we treat ordained men.

 

When a man receives the priesthood he is required to conform to the order of the priesthood. Are we going to have women, optionally ordained, conform to a different order??

 

That makes absolutely no sense when it comes to priesthood. And I suspect that it's not something that anyone demanding the priesthood is really willing to address in detail.

 

And it would still be viewed as unacceptable by some.

[ERayR]

In other words, “separate but equal.”  

 

And it would still be viewed as unacceptable by some.