The Nehor Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 No offense, Brother, but I really hope they don't.The feeling is mutual.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 However, If I were an exmember I would wish all the above to happen in the church because it would show a church is disarray and in disharmony. The more the members bicker among themselves the better. But if one truly loves the church, one wishes for harmony and unity so the church can be the harmonious body of christ, a place where the saints can come to have peace and worship as a community of saints.It's definitely what Christ Himself wants, for He urgently warned, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."
Abulafia Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) It's definitely what Christ Himself wants, for He urgently warned, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."And that was in all likelihood put in the mouth of Jesus and aimed at a set of communities that were not united right from the life and death of Jesus. (From a historical point of view)Edited to add that it would be interesting to examine what he, if he did say it, meant specifically. It can be interpreted in more than one way. Edited June 26, 2014 by Abulafia
teddyaware Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Wow! How did you completely miss my point? I LIKE the learn as you go approach. I have no problem with a Church run by PEOPLE (only one of whom has ever been perfect). In fact, one of the beautiful parts of our theology is eternal PROGRESSION. You can't have it both ways. First wanting the local leadership to invariably be as experienced, spiritually mature, and quite nearly as perfect in judgment as the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve; while at the same rejoicing in a "learn as you go" local leadership that unavoidably will almost always be less experienced, less spiritually mature and more prone to error than the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
teddyaware Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) Okay, that convinced me I guess it's too bad that the other 99% of Christians are completely wasting their time each weekend in churches. Because there is no value in this Savoir thing unless you have Him personally running your church.As long as the non-LDS Christian churches have leaders and members who enjoy presence of the light of Christ in their lives, then the Lord is there helping them to be better Christians in spite of the fact that they lack authentic priesthood authority and are in error on major points of doctrine. It's only the sons of perdition who by forfeit are utterly devoid of the presence of the Spirit of the Lord in their lives; all the rest of God's earthly children enjoy the Spirit of Christ to one degree or another. The Lord loves His children regardless of church affiliation. While the LDS Church is the only true and living Church, according to the Lord's own word, the influence of the light of Christ is enjoyed by varying degrees in the non-LDS congregations."We believe that all churches do great good. We believe in the virtue in the lives of other people in other churches. We acknowledge the tremendous accomplishments of other churches. Our position is simply this, we say, you bring all the good that you have, wherever you have acquired it, and see if we may add to it." (Gordon B Hinckley) Edited June 26, 2014 by teddyaware
AZ in GA Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 I have had some great priesthood leaders over the years, and I have had some terrible ones. Generally, the great ones were humble, serving, loving, and if you asked them, they would rather be serving in the primary. The terrible ones were loud, demanding, they "ran for office", self righteous, and believed they were better than certain callings. Which of the two best describes Kate Kelly?
Tacenda Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) Why can men go all the way to the First Presidency to appeal an excommunication, and a woman only appeal to one man and at best on the regional level. Just listened to her interview on CNN. Edited June 26, 2014 by Tacenda
BlueDreams Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Why can men go all the way to the First Presidency to appeal an excommunication, and a woman only appeal to one man and at best on the regional level. Just listened to her interview on CNN. according to wikipedia, different courts held have different processes for appeal. Ward level courts are appealed by the stake presidency. Stake and missionary president courts are done by the first presidency. A Branch or district court are done be the mission president (though probably not a branch within a stake, i'm guessing). So it's more about the order of things than necessarily the gender and because of that, the vast majority of women would be tried on the ward level and their appeals would be by the stake....unless they were missionaries or in a branch/district. I have no idea about why that is. With luv,BD 1
Duncan Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Why can men go all the way to the First Presidency to appeal an excommunication, and a woman only appeal to one man and at best on the regional level. Just listened to her interview on CNN. When I was a missionary we worked with a lady who's dad was some big guy in the Church, District President and other similar type callings, he also was doing bad things to his daughters all the while....I can't recall exactley but he was called to do something else like Patriarch and she opposed it and so an interview came about. Well, it all came out the years of abuse and everything. Anyways there was a court convened and basically she got in trouble while he didn't yet she knew the brethren were afraid of this guy and knew he wasn't up to snuff (how I have no idea) Anyways she appealed it and Elder John ****son of the 70 came down and interviewed her and others and he found that the court was botched and he told her to move into another stake. She was spanish and he told her to attend an english stake and see what happens. She did and things worked out better and she didn't get into trouble, whereas the father did and he was excommunicated. I don't think though that Elder ****son told the court to ex the man but told them he needs one and for these reasons, because if they wouldn't believe her then they'd believe him
Stone holm Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Women can be tried at the Stake level or at the Bishop's court level. Men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood cannot be excommunicated via a Bishop's Disciplinary Council, but must be tried at the Stake level. Branch Presidencies can conduct disciplinary councils. Its always been my understanding that eventually all appeals can ultimately wind up before the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. Where Councils are initiated is only indirectly about gender, its more about what Priesthood is held. Since the Melchizedec Priesthood is governed by the Stake, trials involving holders of the MP normally are started at the Stake level, however, I have also seen trial of women initiated at the Stake level as well. Although it is not intended to be, trial of women before all men Councils where they are not even accompanied by another woman is considered by many women to be very intimidating and especially humiliating.
USU78 Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Although it is not intended to be, trial of women before all men Councils where they are not even accompanied by another woman is considered by many women to be very intimidating and especially humiliating. Does this mean we are to believe KK was a precious bud that wilted under the accumulated hatreds engendered by all those Y-chromosome possessors? Not buying it. 1
Avatar4321 Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Actually no. While it is true that the only way to completely overcome our "natural man" is to die, we can still reason and act with honor and decorum and not throw a tantrum just because someone won't give us everything we want. No mater how many = bumperstickers people put on their cars, life is not equal and it's not fair. If she truly loved the church (the Lord) as she states, why all the willful rebellion and belligerence? I thought we could overcome the natural man by yeilding to the enticings of the Holy Spirit. 1
ELF1024 Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Although it is not intended to be, trial of women before all men Councils where they are not even accompanied by another woman is considered by many women to be very intimidating and especially humiliating. Somehow I have a hard time believing the KK would be intimidated by much of anything.
mtomm Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Somehow I have a hard time believing the KK would be intimidated by much of anything. I agree, but I don't think Stone was concerned so much about KK but there are about 7.5 million other women that it may impact.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 And that was in all likelihood put in the mouth of Jesus and aimed at a set of communities that were not united right from the life and death of Jesus. (From a historical point of view)Edited to add that it would be interesting to examine what he, if he did say it, meant specifically. It can be interpreted in more than one way.No, this was given directly from Jesus Christ in a revelation through Joseph Smith the Prophet at Fayette, New York, on Jan 2, 1831. The occasion was a conference of the newly restored and organized Church in this latter-day gospel dispensation. The scripture is found in Doctrine and Covenants 38:27. I don't know what scriptural passage you have in mind, but apparently it's not this one. 2
Abulafia Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 No, this was given directly from Jesus Christ in a revelation through Joseph Smith the Prophet at Fayette, New York, on Jan 2, 1831. The occasion was a conference of the newly restored and organized Church in this latter-day gospel dispensation. The scripture is found in Doctrine and Covenants 38:27. I don't know what scriptural passage you have in mind, but apparently it's not this one.You are absolutely right. I was thinking of *one mind* passages in the NT. Apologies.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Welp, I could not see this one coming. Maybe I am just insensitive but I just am not that sad over this. She did it to her self. I guess I pity her.
GingerRed Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Welp, I could not see this one coming. Maybe I am just insensitive but I just am not that sad over this. She did it to her self. I guess I pity her. I have to agree. Except I DID see this coming.......I pity her too. I feel MORE sorry for her husband. She has selfishly denied him exaltation and other blessings pertaining to the next life. Unless she repents and gets her blessings restored. What irks me so much is her boo-hooing on and on about she did nothing wrong and got kicked out JUST for 'asking questions'. Yeah right. In that video, she came off to me, with her tone, attitude and body language...... as being very phony , very drama queen, playing that victim card to the hilt. Like Mola said, she did this to herself. She needs to start taking some blame. Red 1
awyatt Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 I feel MORE sorry for her husband. She has selfishly denied him exaltation and other blessings pertaining to the next life. This is untrue. Nobody will be denied any blessings based on the actions of others. That includes Bro. Kelly. -Allen 3
eddie Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 This is untrue. Nobody will be denied any blessings based on the actions of others. That includes Bro. Kelly.-Allen Just as a FYI, he is very supportive of her, as are her parents. 1
Zakuska Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Just as a FYI, he is very supportive of her, as are her parents.And her parents TRs were revoked because of that support, so blessings have been denied.
gtaggart Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 And her parents TRs were revoked because of that support, so blessings have been denied. But not because of her actions. 3
USU78 Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 And her parents TRs were revoked because of that support, so blessings have been denied. Was the alleged disciplinary action concerning KK's mother because she supported her daughter, or because she went a-media-whoring like her daughter? That isn't appropriate language for MDDB.
Zakuska Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 But not because of her actions. Its directly because of her actions. They don't live in a vacuum. Was not one of the reasons given because she had erroded the faith of others?
Recommended Posts