Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[awyatt]

"conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church".

Is that apostasy? I guess it could fit in with apostasy but maybe not.

 

Apostasy is, by definition, "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church."

 

Statements such as "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church" are generic placeholders so that anyone happening on the letter won't know what the exact reasons for the discipline are. The phrases are pulled directly from the CHBI. I guarantee you, however, that the person receiving the letter knows the actual "conduct" that resulted in the council.

 

That's just the way it works.

 

-Allen

[Abulafia]

If my wife were in jeopardy of losing her membership in the Church, I would want to know about it and would claim that right.

And before anyone starts with me on this, if the situation were reversed, I would say my wife would have every right to know if my membership were in jeopardy, whether or not I was disposed to tell her.

The reality is that in the Church of Jesus Christ, neither husband nor wife lives in a vacuum when it comes to ecclesiastical worthiness.

By "ready to throw in the towel," if you mean she's weighing her ideology against her eternal blessings and is seriously considering which is the more precious to her, I'd say that's arguably a good thing.

That's one way of looking at it, but the point is whether her membership should be on the line for supporting a group as a matter of conscience when there is no doctrinal reason that she shouldn't.

Gordon B Hinckley states on a national show that women are happy and not agitating for change, and when they do, they are not accepted but summarily dismissed. The message is clear.

Obedience to one's God given conscience should be the first law of heaven surely? That these women and their supporters are being treated like murderers sends out a clear message.

In the UK, women by law, have equal rights except for in religion where they can be discriminated against as a matter of course.

I'd like to see laws enacted that force religions to see women as equal to men. It's the only way that the earthly practice of polygamy was halted in the church. In effect they were forced, and who today would support polygamy's return? Most people I know would be out the door in a shot, despite their faith.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

What was interesting to me was KKs admission that she didn't believe that God would sever her ties to her eternal companion over her excommunication.

Do any of us really believe that God would do that to her? I don't believe it now, and I would never have believed it, not even as a faithful, active member. For murder maybe, but for this. No. No. No.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................   

 

Women do receive the priesthood powers in the temple- both man and women are endowed and blessed from on high with priesthood powers that will enable them to become both priests and priestesses/ kings and queens in heaven. The sealing ceremony also reinforces to them both that they each will receive the powers of heaven and reign with power in eternity if they are faithful to their priesthood covenants they make and receive. That is all the information we have at this point.

Not quite, Rob.

You are speaking only of women as initiates and recipients of temple ordinances and blessings.  You overlook the many women in each temple who perform ordinances as temple workers who say the words and conduct the rites which are an essential part of those ordinances and blessings.  You might also want to reflect on the ordinances once conducted by members of the Relief Society.

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................  

Gordon B Hinckley states on a national show that women are happy and not agitating for change, and when they do, they are not accepted but summarily 

dismissed. The message is clear.

Did Pres Hinckley actually put it just that way? I'd be much more comfortable with a direct quote. CFR

 

Obedience to one's God given conscience should be the first law of heaven surely? That these women and their supporters are being treated like murderers sends out a clear message.

"being treated like murderers"?

 

In the UK, women by law, have equal rights except for in religion where they can be discriminated against as a matter of course.

Would Elizabeth I Regina describe it that way, seeing that she is the head of the Church of England? And with so many branches of Anglicanism accepting ordination of women, can the UK be far behind?  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/church-england-votes-favor-female-bishops-f2D11630228 .

 

I'd like to see laws enacted that force religions to see women as equal to men. It's the only way that the earthly practice of polygamy was halted in the church. In effect they were forced, and who today would support polygamy's return? Most people I know would be out the door in a shot, despite their faith.

The Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was nearly passed a quarter-century ago, but was deep-sixed through opposition of the LDS Church. Mormons misunderstood the nature of that proposed amendment, thinking apparently that it would in some way restrict or interfere with their religious practices.

 

However, the use of secular law to "force religions to see women as equal to men" would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment covering freedom of religion.

 

As to polygyny, I agree that most American and British Mormons would not want to see a return to that marriage practice at all, and I consider it most unlikely that the Brethren would adopt it based on the modern legal trend toward approval of nearly any unusual marriage practice.  Even Muslims would be hesitant to practice it in the West.  However, it will soon be a Constitutional reality in the USA, and arrests for bigamy or plural marriage will no longer be possible.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Abulafia]

Robert said: Did Pres Hinckley actually put it just that way? I'd be much more comfortable with a direct quote. CFR

It was the Australian radio show. Here's the link for the full transcript.

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm

Robert said: "being treated like murderers"?

Well, from my perspective these women and men are being punished as severely as would be the case for those who commit the most grevious of sins. In fact, I've known of women and daughters being sexually abused by church leaders, fellow members and fathers, where the crime (to me utterly henious), has been covered up, ignored or even blamed on the woman. It's not a problem unique to the LDS church, but would be solved by a different leadership structure that included women. To me it indicates an utterly skewed sense of ethics. The Pope's biggest exercise, I think, is to put this right within a patriarchal structure.

As an aside, one of my closest childhood friends went through a divorce after her husband left her for another woman. She was blamed by her leadership, all men, who took her husband's side. Being a member of many LDS groups, this is a far more common story than it should be and it needs to be addressed. Again, part of the problem would be solved by bringing in women to leadership from a structural point of view.

Robert said: Would Elizabeth I Regina describe it that way, seeing that she is the head of the Church of England? And with so many branches of Anglicanism accepting ordination of women, can the UK be far behind? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/church-england-votes-favor-female-bishops-f2D11630228 .

She plays almost an honorary role. My point was that religion is excluded from equality laws over here. I'm sure sheilauk could give some input on that. I believe it to be wrong.

Robert said:However, the use of secular law to "force religions to see women as equal to men" would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment covering freedom of religion.

But....there has to be limits on religious freedom. The wearing of the Burka in France is a case in point.

Robert said: As to polygyny, I agree that most American and British Mormons would not want to see a return to that marriage practice at all, and I consider it most unlikely that the Brethren would adopt it based on the modern legal trend toward approval of nearly any unusual marriage practice. Even Muslims would be hesitant to practice it in the West. However, it will soon be a Constitutional reality in the USA, and arrests for bigamy or plural marriage will no longer be possible.

The interesting point to me is that historically the early brethren were so tied to the view of polygamy that they felt the church would be in apostasy if it's earthly practice were ever rescinded. They were forced to give it up, otherwise the practice would never have been rescinded. If they can be forced once, they can be forced again, because there are bigger principles at stake here, and rightfully so.

I just wish they were ahead of the game, instead of being so darned conservative. All this is my own opinion. I don't expect to be agreed with.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Abulafia

[Stone holm]

Robert said: Did Pres Hinckley actually put it just that way? I'd be much more comfortable with a direct quote. CFR

It was the Australian radio show. Here's the link for the full transcript. http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm

Robert said: "being treated like murderers"?

Well, from my perspective these women and men are being punished as severely as would be the case for those who commit the most grevious of sins. In fact, I've known of women and daughters being sexually abused by church leaders, fellow members and fathers, where the crime (to me utterly henious), has been covered up, ignored or even blamed on the woman. It's not a problem unique to the LDS church, but would be solved by a different leadership structure that included women. To me it indicates an utterly skewed sense of ethics. The Pope's biggest exercise, I think, is to put this right within a patriarchal structure.

As an aside, one of my closest childhood friends went through a divorce after her husband left her for another woman. She was blamed by her leadership, all men, who took her husband's side. Being a member of many LDS groups, this is a far more common story than it should be and it needs to be addressed. Again, part of the problem would be solved by bringing in women to leadership from a structural point of view.

Robert said: Would Elizabeth I Regina describe it that way, seeing that she is the head of the Church of England? And with so many branches of Anglicanism accepting ordination of women, can the UK be far behind? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/church-england-votes-favor-female-bishops-f2D11630228 .

She plays almost an honorary role. My point was that religion is excluded from equality laws over here. I'm sure sheilauk could give some input on that. I believe it to be wrong.

Robert said:However, the use of secular law to "force religions to see women as equal to men" would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment covering freedom of religion.

But....there has to be limits on religious freedom. The wearing of the Burka in France is a case in point.

Robert said: As to polygyny, I agree that most American and British Mormons would not want to see a return to that marriage practice at all, and I consider it most unlikely that the Brethren would adopt it based on the modern legal trend toward approval of nearly any unusual marriage practice. Even Muslims would be hesitant to practice it in the West. However, it will soon be a Constitutional reality in the USA, and arrests for bigamy or plural marriage will no longer be possible.

The interesting point to me is that historically the early brethren were so tied to the view of polygamy that they felt the church would be in apostasy if it's earthly practice were ever rescinded. They were forced to give it up, otherwise the practice would never have been rescinded. If they can be forced once, they can be forced again, because there are bigger principles at stake here, and rightfully so.

I just wish they were ahead of the game, instead of being so darned conservative. All this is my own opinion. I don't expect to be agreed with.

With respect to polygamy many of the States from the former Deseret Territory have informal policies of avoiding prosecuting " clean" polygamy cases. Meaning there has to be under age sex, incest, child abuse, welfare fraud or something else sinister involved. The reason being the possibility of anti polygamy laws being overturned. I believe a fair amount of the legal profession consider U.S. V Reynolds to be incorrect and seriously flawed in its reasoning.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert said: Did Pres Hinckley actually put it just that way? I'd be much more comfortable with a direct quote. CFR

It was the Australian radio show. Here's the link for the full transcript.

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm

Thanks for that, dear.

However, I was only able to find these relevant quotes from GBH in that 1997 interview by David Ransom, and they did not support your more extreme version:

GBH:

We expect people to think for themselves. Now, if they get off and begin to fight the Church and that sort of thing as one or two do now and again, we simply disfellowship them and go our way. But those cases are really very, very few.

* * * *

RB: They all say that?

GBH: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

* * * *

GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?

GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.

 

Robert said: "being treated like murderers"?

Well, from my perspective these women and men are being punished as severely as would be the case for those who commit the most grevious of sins. In fact, I've known of women and daughters being sexually abused by church leaders, fellow members and fathers, where the crime (to me utterly henious), has been covered up, ignored or even blamed on the woman. It's not a problem unique to the LDS church, but would be solved by a different leadership structure that included women. To me it indicates an utterly skewed sense of ethics. The Pope's biggest exercise, I think, is to put this right within a patriarchal structure.

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church has had the very devil of a time dealing with sexual molestation by priests, and none too successfully. Other faiths, including the LDS Church have had to deal with this problem as well, as you point out.

However, we weren't in the midst of a discussion of how to deal with sexual molestation and rape within religious groups, but with whether it is appropriate to equate the gravity of murder with other crimes. Reminds me of those well-intentioned parties who say that adultery and fornication are equivalent to murder. Overstatement does nothing but muddy the waters.

 

As an aside, one of my closest childhood friends went through a divorce after her husband left her for another woman. She was blamed by her leadership, all men, who took her husband's side. Being a member of many LDS groups, this is a far more common story than it should be and it needs to be addressed. Again, part of the problem would be solved by bringing in women to leadership from a structural point of view.

You are undoubtedly correct to suppose that more female participation in Church governance would result in better consideration of the valuable female viewpoint -- just as having female justices on the U. S. Supreme Court is an excellent practical reality (though in a largely Protestant country it is odd that we have only Roman Catholic and Jewish justices).

 

Robert said: Would Elizabeth I Regina describe it that way, seeing that she is the head of the Church of England? And with so many branches of Anglicanism accepting ordination of women, can the UK be far behind? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/church-england-votes-favor-female-bishops-f2D11630228 .

She plays almost an honorary role. My point was that religion is excluded from equality laws over here. I'm sure sheilauk could give some input on that. I believe it to be wrong.

She selects the Archbishop of Canterbury, who runs the Anglican Church.

As for the separation of Church & State (which is dear to the hearts of Americans), our Supreme Court long ago decided that such separation was very important to prevent civil authorities from interfering in religious matters -- the effect being so often pernicious.

My point was that Anglicanism was moving inexorably toward the ordination of women and full religious equality.

 

Robert said:However, the use of secular law to "force religions to see women as equal to men" would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment covering freedom of religion.

But....there has to be limits on religious freedom. The wearing of the Burka in France is a case in point.

While I am sympathetic toward French sensibilities and the desire to maintain a "French culture," such a rule would be impossible in the USA. Not just the French but Europeans generally simply do not understand or respect the importance of the liberties guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to our Constitution (religion, speech, etc.).

 

Robert said: As to polygyny, I agree that most American and British Mormons would not want to see a return to that marriage practice at all, and I consider it most unlikely that the Brethren would adopt it based on the modern legal trend toward approval of nearly any unusual marriage practice. Even Muslims would be hesitant to practice it in the West. However, it will soon be a Constitutional reality in the USA, and arrests for bigamy or plural marriage will no longer be possible.

The interesting point to me is that historically the early brethren were so tied to the view of polygamy that they felt the church would be in apostasy if it's earthly practice were ever rescinded. They were forced to give it up, otherwise the practice would never have been rescinded. If they can be forced once, they can be forced again, because there are bigger principles at stake here, and rightfully so.

I just wish they were ahead of the game, instead of being so darned conservative. All this is my own opinion. I don't expect to be agreed with.

You have certainly captured the irony when considering the early Mormon defense of an unusual marriage practice, and their current condemnation of it -- along with other unusual marriage practices.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Abulafia]

Ah Robert, on your first point I understand.

Okay, a misunderstanding.

Gordon B Hinckley states on a national show that women are happy and not agitating for change. My point: - when they do,as has happened recently they are not accepted but summarily

dismissed. The message is clear.

[why me]

Gordon B Hinckley states on a national show that women are happy and not agitating for change. My point: - when they do,as has happened recently they are not accepted but summarily

dismissed. The message is clear.

Not exactly. OW formed an organization stating that women must have the priesthood to achieve equality in the church. They then, began to organize 'missionary discussions' why this should happen. They were agitating for change which would make them all fall under this talk:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/the-canker-of-contention?lang=eng

 

Leaders of the Church

 

 

Leaders of the Church are targets for attack by those who stir contention. This is true even though not a single leader has called himself or herself to a position of responsibility. Each General Authority, for instance, chose another path to pursue as his life’s occupation. But the reality is, as with Peter or Paul, each was surely “called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority.” (A of F 1:5.) With that call comes the commitment to emulate the patterns of the Prince of Peace.

That goal is shared by worthy servants of the Master, who would not speak ill of the Lord’s anointed nor provoke contention over teachings declared by ancient or living prophets.

Certainly no faithful follower of God would promote any cause even remotely related to religion if rooted in controversy, because contention is not of the Lord.

Surely a stalwart would not lend his or her good name to periodicals, programs, or forums that feature offenders who do sow “discord among brethren.” (Prov. 6:19; see also Prov. 6:14.)

Such agitators unfortunately fulfill long-foretold prophecy: they “take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” (Ps. 2:2.)

Yet, mercifully, the anointed pray for those who attack them, knowing the sad fate prophesied for their attackers. (See D&C 121:16–22.)

Throughout the world, Saints of the Lord follow Him and His anointed leaders. They have learned that the path of dissent leads to real dangers. The Book of Mormon carries this warning:

“Now these dissenters, having the same instruction and the same information … , having been instructed in the same knowledge of the Lord, nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent, and more wild, wicked and ferocious … ; giving way to indolence, and all manner of lasciviousness; yea, entirely forgetting the Lord their God.” (Alma 47:36.)

How divisive is the force of dissension! Small acts can lead to such great consequences. Regardless of position or situation, no one can safely assume immunity to contention’s terrible toll.

Thomas B. Marsh, once one of the Twelve, left the Church. His spiritual slide to apostasy started because his wife and another woman had quarreled over a little cream! After an absence from the Church of nearly nineteen years, he came back. To a congregation of Saints, he then said:

“If there are any among this people who should ever apostatize and do as I have done, prepare your backs for a good whipping, if you are such as the Lord loves. But if you will take my advice, you will stand by the authorities.” (Journal of Discourses, 5:206; see also Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, May 1984, pp. 81–83.)

Of course the authorities are human. But to them God has entrusted the keys to His divine work. And He holds us accountable for our responses to the teachings of His servants. These are the words of the Lord:

“If my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.

“But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest.” (D&C 124:45–46.)

 

I do think that OW would fall under an organized group of individuals who are agitating for change regardless of what the lord may say since their website states that women must have the priesthood.

 

Edited July 4, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

Ah Robert, on your first point I understand.

Okay, a misunderstanding.

Gordon B Hinckley states on a national show that women are happy and not agitating for change. My point: - when they do,as has happened recently they are not accepted but summarily

dismissed. The message is clear.

There has been agitation going on for several years. No one was ignored by the leadership for the wear pants to Church, a statement was given that this was perfectly acceptable attire iirc. The women praying in church movement were a little slow in acting, leadership had likely been paying attention to that already and had already signed women up for prayers by the time the formal petition or whatever they did got going. Other increases of women's visual presence have appeared through placement of female leaders' pictures by male, putting the women in the center so easily seen at conference time. Much publication of what female church leaders are doing on the front page of lds.org everytime I visit it.

It was a very specific and persistent promotion and proselyting directly to women in their wards of an ultimatum that was refused to negotiate that got agitators disciplined, which included IMO a continual misrepresentation of what was going on and how the Church was reacting to it.

Edited July 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Abulafia]

Calmoriah, all I know of OW is the online group. I know of no pressure in wards. Do you have any evidence for that.

Gordon B Hinckley brought up the term 'agitate', which some could understandably consider an invitation.

Dictionary Definition

*to try to get people to support or oppose something*

Robert, the punishment Kate received was pretty much the same that a member who commits murder, child abuse and incest might receive.

When male leaders in Catholicism, for instance, protect the abusers, but excommunicate a woman for being ordained a priest by a *rogue* leader/priest, what message does this send about where the Catholic Church's priorities lie?

It's madness.

[Scott Lloyd]

Robert, the punishment Kate received was pretty much the same that a member who commits murder, child abuse and incest might receive.

.

Only because excommunication is the most serious penalty the Church can impose. The reason murderers or child abusers don't get more serious punishment is that the Church has no more stringent punishment at its disposal. To conclude from this that the Church regards what Kate Kelly did as being as bad as murder is fatuous reasoning. Edited July 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

Robert, the punishment Kate received was pretty much the same that a member who commits murder, child abuse and incest might receive.

 

 

I am afraid that you left out some more: adultery, premarital sex, apostacy etc. I remember that quite a few members were exed for premarital sex, especially the men. The women who engaged in it received sometimes no discipline at all. And adultery was a done deal in most cases: excommunication.  I think that you are being a bit too dramatic in your post by leaving out the above I just wrote.

[Calm]

Proselyting to women in ward:

"People that might be interested in this kind of discussion group include: women in your ward or neighborhood, playgroups, running/jogging/exercise/yoga groups, book clubs, fellow university students, LDS co-workers.

• If you want to form a group with others in your community, you can announce the formation of the group in print, online and anywhere people gather, such as:......

Ward or Relief Society online announcement platforms or listservs (i.e. Google or Yahoo groups) Local community, university, or organization bulletin boards"

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OW6DiscussionsGettingStartedPacket.pdf

And a taste of how the discussions intend to direct the connotations of patriarchy towards pejoratives only:

"“What is patriarchy?” asked Mrs. Jensen, the high school history teacher. Only Emma knew, out of the entire class of 30. She slowly raised her hand and answered, “It’s where men have all the authority and are necessary leaders for the organization to function. Women are subordinated. Women have roles, and they might be needed, but they are overseen by men and they are not necessary to the governing, rule-making, and ultimate decisions of the culture like male leaders are.”

Her teacher was impressed, “How did you know that?” “I’m Mormon,” Emma replied.*"

This BINGO ice breaker activity will help identify some symptoms of growing up in a patriarchal culture. Cut the squares and arrange them as you like, so that each player’s board in in a unique formation. Fill in the Free Square with something from your own life.

The leaders you grew up learning about, singing about and honoring were men

Your dad presided over your mom

In Primary most of the lessons and songs were about men

More money and time was spent on boys in your ward than girls (Boy Scouts, Young Men’s activities)

There was more concentration put on controlling girl’s dress standards than boy’s

Fatherhood was de-emphasized at church

You were taught that men and boys are naturally less spiritual, less nurturing, and more selfish

Women, even girls as young as 8 years old, were pedestaled as creators of life

The men who said that stay-at-home mother is the most important thing a person can do in life worked outside the home

You were taught that your primary goal in life was temple marriage, while boys were taught to also prepare for a career

You heard jokes about how incompetent and incapable dads are

Men taught you how to be a woman

FREE SQUARE

_________ _________

You were taught that young women must help control male thoughts by removing temptations through modesty

Your brothers were able to perform ordinances when they turned 12, leaving you out

If you looked for spiritual guidance, it was usually from a man

Every Sunday you looked up to see a stand dominated by male leaders with very few females present, if any

When you received scriptural posters, cartoons, or figurines the character was usually a man

Your dad picked who prayed and if he wasn’t there your younger brother would

Your brothers were encouraged to go to college for an education and you were encouraged to go “just in case”

The leaders whose names you memorized and whose words you read were men

Most scripture stories were about men and their spiritual journeys. Most stories about women were about marriage or their ability to conceive.

The majority of talk about parenting, homemaking and nurturing children revolved around motherhood

Even if your mom had input, you knew that the final say on any major decision was your dad’s

While you cherished your relationship with both your earthly mother and father equally, you were taught only to communicate with your Heavenly Father for guidance

GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. What are your thoughts and feelings after playing this game? What symptoms stood out most to you?

2. Has the male-exclusive priesthood policy of the Church affected your life directly? Would anyone like to share they wrote on the Free Square?

Edited July 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Bingo is from discussion 1

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OrdainWomen6DiscussionsSeetheSymptoms.pdf

[Abulafia]

Thanks Calmoriah.

Scott, historically the church leaders have been pretty condemnatory of apostates. Online references to KK indicate how much she is and has been associated with Satan and his minions by many of the faithful.

This is heady stuff. I don't believe it to be fatuous reasoning at all.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-12?lang=eng

[Stone holm]

I am afraid that you left out some more: adultery, premarital sex, apostacy etc. I remember that quite a few members were exed for premarital sex, especially the men. The women who engaged in it received sometimes no discipline at all. And adultery was a done deal in most cases: excommunication.  I think that you are being a bit too dramatic in your post by leaving out the above I just wrote.

What you said about some women not being exed is true, but not always true. In some cases, it smacks of sexism. It is nearly universal in our culture to put greater blame upon the male. About the only time that is not the case is where the woman is substantially older. I remember a judge in Indiana questioning a rape charge on the basis of trolling and he basically got run off the bench.

[Abulafia]

I am afraid that you left out some more: adultery, premarital sex, apostacy etc. I remember that quite a few members were exed for premarital sex, especially the men. The women who engaged in it received sometimes no discipline at all. And adultery was a done deal in most cases: excommunication.  I think that you are being a bit too dramatic in your post by leaving out the above I just wrote.

I don't think so Why me, I'm getting my information from the most recent version of the CHI and the circumstances in which excommunication is usually mandatory.

It lists murder, child abuse, incest and apostasy.

[readstoomuch]

I may have some idea about how the OW movement is protesting, at least if my daughter is any sign of it. When she didn`t go to the Priesthood session to gain admittance we thought that was a good sign. I have spoken to her several times and tried to be supportive, but told her that I thought the movement was going way too far was really hurting the Church. Apparently she and her husband have taken their garments off. It seemed to take place at about the time Sister Kelly`s excommunication was announced. Today I observed her without them and other members of our family say they noticed a month or so ago. I guess I don`t pay enough attention. It escaped me when I saw her several times.

The message seems to be that the OW movement is more important than temple covenants or possibly the Church itself. Her mom and I (as well as her husband`s parents) are quite worried as you can imagine. Even though I was supportive the last time we spoke about it there were tears. I am worried and praying. The only answer seems to be to be supportive and show her love. I feel like a failure, perhaps I didn`t teach her well enough. Such is the Ordain Women movement. Ours can`t be the only family that feels torn apart by this organization. I can`t imagine that Heavenly Mother is telling her daughters to take their garments off. I really hope it is not one of their tactics. This seemed like the place to post this, though I was tempted to start a new thread.

[Calm]

I don't think so Why me, I'm getting my information from the most recent version of the CHI and the circumstances in which excommunication is usually mandatory.

It lists murder, child abuse, incest and apostasy.

Since apostasy at the level that excommunication may occur includes intentionally causing a loss of faith in leaders and/or doctrine, then it makes sense that it is attached to excommunication so that others will not be confused by thinking this is someone seen as a faithful member by her or his church.

It is also understandable why the other three are excommunicable given the great physical and emotional harm being done. But apotasy's harm is primarily spiritual, though it can be extremely emotionally painful as well by causing confusion and discord.

But to suggest that just because the discipline is the same they are viewed in much the same way ignores the fact that the Church has only one legal method to discipline its members and that is through their standing in the Church. And at some point you are going to hit the maximum level and all more serious other sins will, from the Church at least, receive the same treatment. Murder may be viewed as a hundred times worse but if excommunication is already used for apostasy, what more could the Church do to demonstrate censure to the murderer?

Edited July 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I may have some idea about how the OW movement is protesting, at least if my daughter is any sign of it. When she didn`t go to the Priesthood session to gain admittance we thought that was a good sign. I have spoken to her several times and tried to be supportive, but told her that I thought the movement was going way too far was really hurting the Church. Apparently she and her husband have taken their garments off. It seemed to take place at about the time Sister Kelly`s excommunication was announced. Today I observed her without them and other members of our family say they noticed a month or so ago. I guess I don`t pay enough attention. It escaped me when I saw her several times.

The message seems to be that the OW movement is more important than temple covenants or possibly the Church itself. Her mom and I (as well as her husband`s parents) are quite worried as you can imagine. Even though I was supportive the last time we spoke about it there were tears. I am worried and praying. The only answer seems to be to be supportive and show her love. I feel like a failure, perhaps I didn`t teach her well enough. Such is the Ordain Women movement. Ours can`t be the only family that feels torn apart by this organization. I can`t imagine that Heavenly Mother is telling her daughters to take their garments off. I really hope it is not one of their tactics. This seemed like the place to post this, though I was tempted to start a new thread.

I am sorry to hear that your family is going through this. It doesn't make sense to me that if you believe the Church is what it is...and why else would you want the priesthood in it...why would you let even a major error by its leaders come between you and the relationship you have covenanted with God. Eventually if the leaders are wrong and this is God's Church, he will correct their path and the Church can move forward as a whole. In the meantime you have remained faithful nd committed to the covenants you made with God so you have been moving forward already, now fellow saints will be by your side and all can rejoice together.

But how can you do that if you step away from the covenants you've made with God even if you believe that those who facilitated those covenants by authorizing and performing the ordinances themselves are in error in some areas of their leadership.

[why me]

I don't think so Why me, I'm getting my information from the most recent version of the CHI and the circumstances in which excommunication is usually mandatory.

It lists murder, child abuse, incest and apostasy.

I don't think that much has changed since this was written. However, the church may be just a little more understanding of sexual sins such as premartial sex because of the temptations that are around it.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

 

Disciplinary councils may also be convened to consider a member’s standing in the Church following serious transgression such as abortion, transsexual operation, attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, intentionally inflicting serious physical injuries on others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, child abuse (sexual or physical), spouse abuse, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, theft, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, or false swearing.

 

I think that as you can see, there is much to be disciplined for. And what the decision depends on is prayer and reflection. I think that you are attempting to be overdramatic with your use of so few reasons. Interestingly, priesthood holders are expected not to engage in the above and if they do, they will be exed or receive harsh discipline. I think that for women it may be somewhat easier not to be disciplined. I envied the women who got off lightly from discipline unlike the men. Of course if women did receive the priesthood I would expect that discipline would be given fairly for both women and men.

 

However, I don't think that it has changed all that much from the above.

Edited July 5, 2014 by why me

[why me]

I may have some idea about how the OW movement is protesting, at least if my daughter is any sign of it. When she didn`t go to the Priesthood session to gain admittance we thought that was a good sign. I have spoken to her several times and tried to be supportive, but told her that I thought the movement was going way too far was really hurting the Church. Apparently she and her husband have taken their garments off. It seemed to take place at about the time Sister Kelly`s excommunication was announced. Today I observed her without them and other members of our family say they noticed a month or so ago. I guess I don`t pay enough attention. It escaped me when I saw her several times.

The message seems to be that the OW movement is more important than temple covenants or possibly the Church itself. Her mom and I (as well as her husband`s parents) are quite worried as you can imagine. Even though I was supportive the last time we spoke about it there were tears. I am worried and praying. The only answer seems to be to be supportive and show her love. I feel like a failure, perhaps I didn`t teach her well enough. Such is the Ordain Women movement. Ours can`t be the only family that feels torn apart by this organization. I can`t imagine that Heavenly Mother is telling her daughters to take their garments off. I really hope it is not one of their tactics. This seemed like the place to post this, though I was tempted to start a new thread.

I am sorry for your pain. I think that your daughter will eventually come around. I also think that it will be good to have a discussion about revelation, prayer and the idea that OW stated that the only way women can achieve equality is if they had he priesthood. It was the must that made it problematic. And of course we had the missionary discussions that OW wanted to engage in. You can ask your daughter if she would be as supportive with a group of active members who were forming an organization about the restoration of polygamy. And if this group was staging a protest on temple square and whose website stated that polygamy must be restored to the one true church would she be okay with it. And if she would defend those members the right to engage in missionary work among the members. Sometimes it is good for people to take a step outside themselves to see the world differently.

 

I will pray for your family.

Edited July 5, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think so Why me, I'm getting my information from the most recent version of the CHI and the circumstances in which excommunication is usually mandatory.

It lists murder, child abuse, incest and apostasy.

You are still using the same fallacious reasoning.

As cal and I have both tried to convey to you (she perhaps more clearly than I), the fact that the severest penalty is attached to those things cannot be taken to mean that they are regarded by the Church to be equivalent in seriousness. It only means the Church is limited in the severity of penalty it can/will impose.