Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[readstoomuch]

I think her husband thought it was a phase, but is fairly liberal himself. He is now on board, though maybe not to the degree that she is. His garments are off too. I am hearing some of this from his side of the family as well as going through some posts online. I always get quite a bit of support here, so you can tell that I am here for help. The very first time I posted it was about another child. I thought this one in OW was doing well.

I decided not to say too much or get adversarial about things. I am with her for the weekend and we are just trying to enjoy our family. I did read the scriptures with her family and they read and then the father prayed at the end of the session. It was their house so I let them lead as much as I could. I think it is a good sign. I just don`t know. I am praying and thinking about how to help her. She seems quite lost. She is an educated woman, though I think she has drunk the Kool-aid with this group.

I do think the discussions that are going about women in the Church are good. Those that are outside of OW. I know that OW doesn`t really have a model of what the Church would be like after the women were ordained or how to deal with the 95% of women who don`t want to be ordained.

I can`t believe that this is my baby that I used to hold in my arms. So much time and effort have gone into raising her. Even tonite she said that she was always taught the gospel extensively at home. Certainly I am considering the fact that there are other reasons she might want to leave the Church. It all just seems like a nightmare.

[Duncan]

I think her husband thought it was a phase, but is fairly liberal himself. He is now on board, though maybe not to the degree that she is. His garments are off too. I am hearing some of this from his side of the family as well as going through some posts online. I always get quite a bit of support here, so you can tell that I am here for help. The very first time I posted it was about another child. I thought this one in OW was doing well.

I decided not to say too much or get adversarial about things. I am with her for the weekend and we are just trying to enjoy our family. I did read the scriptures with her family and they read and then the father prayed at the end of the session. It was their house so I let them lead as much as I could. I think it is a good sign. I just don`t know. I am praying and thinking about how to help her. She seems quite lost. She is an educated woman, though I think she has drunk the Kool-aid with this group.

I do think the discussions that are going about women in the Church are good. Those that are outside of OW. I know that OW doesn`t really have a model of what the Church would be like after the women were ordained or how to deal with the 95% of women who don`t want to be ordained.

I can`t believe that this is my baby that I used to hold in my arms. So much time and effort have gone into raising her. Even tonite she said that she was always taught the gospel extensively at home. Certainly I am considering the fact that there are other reasons she might want to leave the Church. It all just seems like a nightmare.

 

 

My prayers are with you my friend!! hang in there!!!!! I have a son who doesn't live with me and he is 11 and not baptized, it kills

[Calm]

Abula, does it help at all in your line of reasoning that murder requires excommunication, incest in almost all cases (I suspect there is the case where two children are involved that don't really know what they are doing), in abuse severity relates the the impact on his (or hers) victims as well as if it was a highly responsible calling).  Apostasy has a lot more variation on whether or not the individual has gone far enough that having her or him as a member will do further hard to other members' faith or damage missionary work if others think of them as faithful members.

 

So while the punishment is the same because that is the maximum allowed, the worst crimes get there a lot quicker than apostates do.

 

Would you really want incest to be given a lesser punishment (disfellowship) because it isn't as bad as murder (excommunication) or physical abuse without a sexual component less than (informal probation) sexual abuse (formal probation)?  All of those rate excommunication and more…but the Church can't do the "and more" and if one is worried about appearances then one has the appearance of not caring as much for the less heinous crimes and almost treating them trivially if one chooses to save excommunication for only the worst sin there can be "murder" (but what of the different forms of murder?)

 

I think it becomes impossible once sins have reached a certain stage for the Church to do anything with the individual until the State has dealt with it and they have pay in one sense a restitution for the sin anyway…and thus can move on in members.  At that point what is necessary to be done can become quite involved and quite long.  

 

For apostasy perhaps not that much if the person has an epiphany where s/he went wrong and repents and rejects their old position completely.  That might be a very quick turn around with very little in addition that wouldn't come naturally to someone who had changed their heart and mind and wanted to replace false teachings with pure ones.

 

So think of excommunication somewhat like jailtime.  All criminals jailed that day go through the same process, they look like they are being treated the same, but the very worst ones may end up moving to total isolation, be put on death row or life without parole, while others may be in for 3 months, a few years 15, etc.  Surface appearance all the same, underneath…how they are experiencing it, much, much different.

[Abulafia]

This seems a bit of a disconnect to me. You identify closely with what you perceive as the desires of OW, but not so closely with the desires of the "church." I can tell you, from personal experience with Church leaders at all levels, that they only desire the best interests of all members. Yet, you say that it is those same leaders that are "rejecting" OW.

Why do you see the Church leaders as doing the "rejecting" instead of the OW leaders? Do you have a personal blind spot at play here? Why, specifically, should the claims of the OW leaders be accepted as closer to the "truth" than the claims of the Church leaders?

-Allen

Possibly. I did watch the talk Elder Oaks gave at the men's priesthood session. My general impression was that he was confirming the rightness of the status quo, rather than really dealing with the issues. Though I do think he was opening the door somewhat.

As for the church rejecting these women. I think that obviously it depends on perspective. But I am absolutely convinced that KK wasn't 'asking for it' (excommunication), that is the language used for victims of assault. Could KK have done things differently? Yes. Could the institutional church? Yes.

I don't think the issues are black and white on either side.

I do think that education around the role of women historically and more recently is the way forward.

The problem with education is that it highlights the inequality of the institution. I think the brethren need to be educated as much as anyone And I am sure they don't all feel the same way.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Cal, my personal belief is that KKs excommunication is a net negative for the church. It has hurt far more people than it has helped.

That's just my opinion.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Abulafia

[Senator]

No one should be or feel obligated to follow against their conscience in my opinion.

 

No they shouldn't.

 

Are you willing to grant that right to the leadership of the church as well?  What if the ordination of women was against the consciences of the the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve?  Should they be "obligated to follow against their consciences" because of the demands of certain groups or individuals in the church?

[stemelbow]

Cal, my personal belief is that KKs excommunication is a net negative for the church. It has hurt far more people than it has helped.

That's just my opinion.

THis is probably true.

[BlueDreams]

Scott, believe it or not, one of the reasons I come here is to be disagreed with, and I am not so narrow minded that I do not appreciate the point you are making (insults not withstanding).

But, when a matter of conscience from a good woman is treated with the same punishment as the most serious and horrific of crimes then I (and my non member husband who I have discussed this with) question the appropriateness of the punishment in KKs case.

Young children will learn in hushed tones that apostates (the label KK is being given and much worse) are on par with those who commit those henious crimes. They often don't understand the nuances that you rightly outline, and if the online conversations of many members are anything to go by, then many adults don't understand either.

I've seen death quoted as an appropriate punishment for these women, which I understand is an extreme reaction, but it isn't so far from the reasoning in some faiths whereby apostasy is a crime worthy of death.

 

This is probably erring on the side of TMI, but I have found the little snippets of dialogue about KK with my family interesting. My people are largely extremely conservative, both religiously and politically. And it's a large very outspoken family. I didn't hear anything like this and it was in no way on similar grounds to someone ex'd for serious crimes. I can say this with pretty good certainty because my grandfather had fit the bill of one who committed a series of serious crimes in our family. He was ex'd and the expectations and dialogue surrounding it were far different, as were the results. He was divorced, spent most his days alone, and couldn't be near children. He was whispered about and the youngest kids found out well later about gramps. There was no expectation or hope that he would return to the church. Most everybody was hoping he'd die soon so he'd stop being such a burden for those who lived nearby. My one aunt crazily put a message about him a year or 2 after he died on FB talking about him and hoping he was resting in heaven. My family, who are active on FB, were silent. Most of us assume he's in hell.

 

KK.....well most of them thought her ideas were stupid, but the overarching message entailed a common dialogue: It's kinda expected. Her pride really got in the way. And hopefully, in time, she can work these things out and come back.

 

 Who knows, maybe my family is uncommonly Christlike. But they're not. I think the average mormon doesn't see her as a pariah worthy of death. More of a nut who's out of touch with the vast majority of members and whose beliefs are false and falsely pushed. And at least in my family, what happened to her is not a whispered conversation when kids are around.

 

So no, the discipline may be on the surface the same, but the dialogue and expectations surrounding it are far far more different. 

 

An aside: Ironically my cousin, who has very similar feminist leanings as I do, was probably more annoyed by KK than the others. Her major beef was the message set up by Kelly that continued to feed into the stereotype of mormon women being oppressed or excessively submissive, which is a stereotype that she feels she's confronted with regularly in her field (her law school internship, currently). She disagreed with KK's perspective prior and was mad with the adversarial dialogue formed surrounding the excommunication. And we were both pretty disgusted with the her parallel to serious violent abuse. (Still similar hope for her to one day come back)

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Abulafia]

No they shouldn't.

Are you willing to grant that right to the leadership of the church as well? What if the ordination of women was against the consciences of the the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve? Should they be "obligated to follow against their consciences" because of the demands of certain groups or individuals in the church?

Well, the institutional church can do what it likes within reason.

I'm not arguing for a minute that these are not well meaning men doing what they think is best according to their own understanding.

As Bruce R. McConkie argued after the lifting of the ban... basically, ignore what any of us said because we spoke with limited understanding.

I was deeply interested in Elder Uchtdorf's recent talk on God yet revealing many great and important truths.

I sincerely believe that truth to be that woman should have full or greater parity in office and responsibilities. I believe that to be the case for all religions, not just Mormonism.

[Calm]

BD, there was a similar situation in my extended family and the attitude was much the same. Same thing with KK.

While I have heard reports of people saying death is an appropriate punishment, the only specific one I can recall was a BYU student awile back (and i think it was for the oants thing) who was highly criticzed by everyone I knew. I have also heard of reports of death as punishment for church leaders so it may be something that just comes out in human nature for people they highly disagree with and has nothing to do with apostasy.

[Senator]

Well, the institutional church can do what it likes within reason.

 

 

Same for the church membership. No?

[Abulafia]

BD Later I can give you a list of judgements some from ex mormons that have been said about the OW women.

I'm really pleased your experience has been different.

In fact this site has shown a greater mix and understanding than some of the fb discussions I have followed and initiated.

I think some members forget they are on a semi public forum and I have many non members on my page deeply interested and fascinated by some of the discussions.

I have received many a private message(from non members) indicating disbelief at some of the unkindness shown to the OW movement by members and ex members alike.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

BD, there was a similar situation in my extended family and the attitude was much the same. Same thing with KK.

While I have heard reports of people saying death is an appropriate punishment, the only specific one I can recall was a BYU student awile back (and i think it was for the oants thing) who was highly criticzed by everyone I knew. I have also heard of reports of death as punishment for church leaders so it may be something that just comes out in human nature for people they highly disagree with and has nothing to do with apostasy.

I was actually part of that conversation with that young man, as was Ms Jack if I recall. It was pretty heart rending. His was the most extreme within that thread.

[readstoomuch]

I know my daughter and her husband are shocked at some of the things said about KK and OW. I also think OW does not show much deference or attempt to find a unified stance with the 95% of women who don't want to be ordained. Even though a number of those women in the Church see the need for some changes. So the OW agenda and techniques push the leaders and members to find forgiveness and healing in their hearts. I personally am struggling with my daughters possible apostasy and the damage that has been done to the Church that I love. I have heard from a number of feminists that the OW excessiveness and unrelenting push has set back what they saw as progress that was being made. I really try to show compassion, but I am obviously hurt and confused.

[Erin15]

Cal, my personal belief is that KKs excommunication is a net negative for the church.

The will of the Lord was followed, the doctrine of the kingdom was upheld.  A message was sent to the world and to the members of the church that truth is more important than political opinions.  And an excommunicated apostate is being mercifully offered to return to the fold under generous conditions of repentance.

 

I'd say it's a triple positive.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Erin15

[JLHPROF]

Cal, my personal belief is that KKs excommunication is a net negative for the church.

 

No.  I think having a media darling vocally disagreeing with established Church doctrines was the net negative.  Just as with the September 6 the average Church member (not on this board of course) won't even remember her in 5 years.

 

 

It has hurt far more people than it has helped.

 

Yes. It has caused KK and apparently many others to lose their temple blessings or throw away their covenants and there will be more to come.   And it may not have helped any who were determined to follow her lead.

[Abulafia]

The will of the Lord was followed, the doctrine of the kingdom was upheld.  A message was sent to the world and to the members of the church that truth is more important than political opinions.  And an excommunicated apostate is being mercifully offered to return to the fold under generous conditions of repentance.

 

I'd say it's a triple positive.

Absolutely certain that the will (possibly the majority)of the brethren was followed. I don't know how compos mentis Elder Monson is at the moment and whether he had an opinion on the matter. I don't know how many of the brethren approved of the action and how many quietly showed concern or disapproved, do you?

Do you really think the institutional church is infallible? That's idolizing them and is unfair. They are human and just don't have perfection to give.

Loyalty is an admirable quality, but on matters of conscience, so is dissent.

[Abulafia]

The doctrine of the kingdom cannot have been upheld, because there is no scriptural support for the policy of excluding women from office and consequently from certain rites and practices, as Ally Isom so clearly pointed out in her interview with Doug Fabrizio.

Current policy and procedure is being upheld, that is true.

[Erin15]

Absolutely certain that the will (possibly the majority)of the brethren was followed. 

 

 

No, not the will of the brethren, the will of the Lord.

 

This is His church.  He runs it.  

 

Every member of His church has the privilege and the responsibility to gain a testimony of that.  I know that excommunicating Kate Kelly was the will of the Lord because the Lord has made it plainly known unto me.

 

I invite you to set aside the feminism and liberalism which are polluting your mind and go to Him in humility and inquire His will on this matter.

 

The doctrine of the kingdom cannot have been upheld, because there is no scriptural support for the policy of excluding women from office and consequently from certain rites and practices

An apostle of the Lord has stated plainly in General Conference that ordination of women is doctrine, not policy.

 

It doesn't get any more official than that.

 

If Jesus Christ himself had stood there, he would have said the same thing.  I have a testimony of this.  It is your privilege and responsibility to gain one as well.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Erin15

[Pahoran]

The doctrine of the kingdom cannot have been upheld, because there is no scriptural support for the policy of excluding women from office and consequently from certain rites and practices, as Ally Isom so clearly pointed out in her interview with Doug Fabrizio.

Current policy and procedure is being upheld, that is true.

 

"No scriptural support?"

 

Believing Latter-day Saints hold that the Priesthood is delegated authority.  This is standard, non-controversial LDS doctrine.

 

The Scriptures, especially the New Testament and the Doctrine and Covenants give specifiic instructions about ordaining men to Priesthood offices.

 

These passages constitute canonical LDS doctrine.

 

There is not a single scripture that instructs anyone to ordain a woman to a Priesthood office.

 

Not even one.

 

You are putting the cart before the horse.  The default position is not to ordain everyone unless commanded otherwise; the default position is that delegated authority is given only to those to whom we are instructed to delegate it.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited July 6, 2014 by Pahoran

[blooit]

Absolutely certain that the will (possibly the majority)of the brethren was followed. I don't know how compos mentis Elder Monson is at the moment and whether he had an opinion on the matter. I don't know how many of the brethren approved of the action and how many quietly showed concern or disapproved, do you?

Do you really think the institutional church is infallible? That's idolizing them and is unfair. They are human and just don't have perfection to give.

Loyalty is an admirable quality, but on matters of conscience, so is dissent.

 

The following of the brethren, whether fallible or not, is our doctrine.  This is what it means to sustain our leadership.  It is not our call.  They make the decision and we should follow until the Lord sees fit to change "the call."

[Abulafia]

The following of the brethren, whether fallible or not, is our doctrine.  This is what it means to sustain our leadership.  It is not our call.  They make the decision and we should follow until the Lord sees fit to change "the call."

Well, the earliest christian communities disagreed with each other and even with James the pillar over fundamental practices and theologies.

It was Ignatius who posited the idea that you follow the bishop as if he were God. So the issue and practice of unquestionably following earthly leaders is just not found in the earliest communities.

Paul is a prime example.

I stand in admiration of the small groups of brave men and women who were prepared to take a stand on policies and practices they knew to be morally wrong, whether that be William Law, Helmuth Hubener, those who stood against the policy of withholding the priesthood from African Americans and indeed those who see discrimination against women.

As for Erin's comments I call Poes Law.

There are many quotes I could pull from early LDS leaders that suggest that blind obedience is not doctrine or practice. They are just not emphasised.

[Abulafia]

"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

[Abulafia]

"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']...said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

Thanks to a poster on fb for quote.

[BlueDreams]

BD Later I can give you a list of judgements some from ex mormons that have been said about the OW women.

I'm really pleased your experience has been different.

In fact this site has shown a greater mix and understanding than some of the fb discussions I have followed and initiated.

I think some members forget they are on a semi public forum and I have many non members on my page deeply interested and fascinated by some of the discussions.

I have received many a private message(from non members) indicating disbelief at some of the unkindness shown to the OW movement by members and ex members alike.

 

 I'm not saying that negative comments won't happen.  It's the internet after all. And I was aware that sharp criticism will happen and along with that offensive statements. I was looking for the overarching dialogue. And though it's not largely positive to KK's position, it's no where near as condemnatory than what would happen if KK did a heinous crime. I've checked multiple sites to make sure. And I double checked my family FB history to see. The 2 worse insinuations were on FB by 2 people who indicated she was going to hell....they were followed up by someone indicating that's not what Ex-ing means. My Aunt keeps largely very conservative friends....The type that once questioned how good of a missionary I was because I didn't teach the falsehoods of abortion (to my aunt's credit, she removed the discussion soon after). Their comments about KK were relatively mild. And most comments that I found either exonerated her or stated something along the lines of what did she expect she's she's going against God's church/doctrine. There were also (probably more) comments that were critical of the church than of KK. Most of the comments (either end) are often woefully missing of depth....but that's not very surprising either, considering it's the net.

 

 

The vast majority of this doesn't reach the levels of taboo for that of someone convicted of murder/sexual assault that you mentioned. That was my main point.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited July 7, 2014 by BlueDreams