Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[awyatt]

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?

Time will tell. Sister Kelly has said she is going to appeal. That means that she will appeal first to her Stake President, within 30 days of the bishop's disciplinary council. He will then rule on what (if anything) should happen. Then, assuming the outcome is not to her liking, she has the option to appeal to the First Presidency. It is at that point, when they decide, that we will know what they think on the matter.

 

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.

I don't know anyone who thinks the Church is infallible. And, arguing that the right thing was done in this particular case is not evidence of feeling that the Church is infallible. It just means that the person expressing the opinion believes that in this one particular instance the Church did the right thing.

-Allen

[awyatt]

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.

 

If you believe that the issue of whether women can be ordained to the priesthood is the basis of Sister Kelly's excommunication, then you haven't been understanding what is going on. Bishop Harrison succinctly recapped what the real issue is:

 

The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe that women should receive the priesthood. The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others. You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to promote them and proselyte others to them while remaining in full fellowship in the Church.

The fact that this is the real issue is evidenced by the reality that there are many other members (of both genders) who believe that women should be ordained or who would welcome such a decision. They have not been disciplined for their beliefs. To say that Sister Kelly was disciplined for her beliefs (and only for her beliefs) is to ignore the evidence.

 

The "doctrine" that was upheld, in the eyes of Bishop Harrison, is that you don't allow apostates, after attempts at correction, to remain as members of the Church. (Wolves among the flock, and all that.)

 

-Allen

[awyatt]

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.

 

You are correct that blind obedience is not doctrine or practice. Blind obedience is lazy, but it is also lazy to assume that all obedience is blind.

 

Here is what blooit said:

 

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."

 

 

There is nothing in his/her words that calls for blind obedience; that is something you read into his/her comments. He/she talks about "sustaining," which is (really) what we do: As a body of Saints we sustain each other.

 

-Allen

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

 

 

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.

Funny thing about the september 6 I never even heard (or didn't care enough to remember) of them till this KK stuff started happening.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"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

Maybe it will sink in this time. Here is to hoping.

[Abulafia]

Time will tell. Sister Kelly has said she is going to appeal. That means that she will appeal first to her Stake President, within 30 days of the bishop's disciplinary council. He will then rule on what (if anything) should happen. Then, assuming the outcome is not to her liking, she has the option to appeal to the First Presidency. It is at that point, when they decide, that we will know what they think on the matter.

 

I don't know anyone who thinks the Church is infallible. And, arguing that the right thing was done in this particular case is not evidence of feeling that the Church is infallible. It just means that the person expressing the opinion believes that in this one particular instance the Church did the right thing.

-Allen

Yes, I get that.

So, when have the brethren made a mistake over doctrine and policy? Where is the list of those who have been exonerated or set up as examples to follow after disagreeing with them publicly?

[Abulafia]

You are correct that blind obedience is not doctrine or practice. Blind obedience is lazy, but it is also lazy to assume that all obedience is blind.

 

Here is what blooit said:

 

 

There is nothing in his/her words that calls for blind obedience; that is something you read into his/her comments. He/she talks about "sustaining," which is (really) what we do: As a body of Saints we sustain each other.

 

-Allen

But by sustaining the brethren in a decision or policy that is wrong you or I would be giving tacit approval to what they are doing.

If I felt someone was wrong, then I couldn't and wouldn't sustain them.

I appreciate that there may be those who sustain even where they think the brethren are in error. To me it just allows a wrong to continue.

Actually I am betting that KK would raise her hand to sustain the brethren, and here she is an excommunicant.

[Abulafia]

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

No. The NT indicates no such thing. Many of the early communities did not have a priesthood in the way it is understood in the church. You are incorrect in your assumption.

[smac97]

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

No. The NT indicates no such thing. Many of the early communities did not have a priesthood in the way it is understood in the church. You are incorrect in your assumption.

Even assuming you are correct about the NT, are you conceding Pahoran's point about the D&C (that it has "specifiic instructions about ordaining men to Priesthood offices")?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

Even assuming you are correct about the NT, are you conceding Pahoran's point about the D&C (that it has "specifiic instructions about ordaining men to Priesthood offices")?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, for me, what is so fascinating about both the early christian communities and early mormonism is that the authority narrative developed.

The development likely came as a result of disagreements and challenges.

So, what I am saying is what we see in the D & C has a history and the development of the authority narrative is nowhere near as simple as the missionary discussions indicate.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Abulafia

[CV75]

I think matters of personal conscience can appropriately be brought up within the council structure. If the council member with the exceptional conscience cannot edify the whole to align to his view, then he has to satisfy himself to patiently and meekly wait on the Lord. That is how councils work in a united and unifying fashion.

 

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/the-ward-council/4.1#41

 

“The Lord’s Church is governed through councils at the general, area, stake, and ward levels. These councils are fundamental to the order of the Church.

 

“Under the keys of priesthood leadership at each level, leaders counsel together for the benefit of individuals and families. Council members also plan the work of the Church pertaining to their assignments. Effective councils invite full expression from council members and unify their efforts in responding to individual, family, and organizational needs.”

 

The Spirit guides the appropriate behavior for these councils. It is not so important to be right or make things right, right now, as it is to edify with what you’ve got to work with. D&C 43:8 and 58:41 give a hint as to the spirit in which we are to apply ourselves in councils. Going outside the councils and without the same spirit that works well in councils will eventually result in contention and failure.

[smac97]

Well, for me, what is so fascinating about both the early christian communities and early mormonism is that the authority narrative developed.

The development likely came as a result of disagreements and challenges.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the Lord knew and knows that authority is a key component of governance of the Kingdom of God, and that challenges to that authority can culminate in apostasy. So if you are suggesting that the authority narrative followed "disagreements and challenges," I would suggest that the authority narrative preceded "disagreements and challenges."

So, what I am saying is what we see in the D & C has a history and the development of the authority narrative is nowhere near as simple as the missionary discussions indicate.

Well, missionary discussions are necessarily distilled and simplified. Moreover, is there an undercurrent of naturalistic assumptions in your comments about the D&C? Or do you believe that it consists of revealed instructions from God?

But back to my question: Do you concede Pahoran's point about the D&C (that it has "specifiic instructions about ordaining men to Priesthood offices")?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps. Or perhaps the Lord knew and knows that authority is a key component of governance of the Kingdom of God, and that challenges to that authority can culminate in apostasy. So if you are suggesting that the authority narrative followed "disagreements and challenges," I would suggest that the authority narrative preceded "disagreements and challenges."

Well, missionary discussions are necessarily distilled and simplified.

"Distilled and simplified" or not, I'm not aware of anything in the material prepared for use by missionaries that contrary to fact as it pertains to authority in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

The Missionary guide Preach My Gospel is widely available and can be readily accessed online. Perhaps Abulafia can provide an example of something that's false or misleading in there as it pertains to authority.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

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

No. The NT indicates no such thing. Many of the early communities did not have a priesthood in the way it is understood in the church. You are incorrect in your assumption.

 

Thank you for that unqualified assertion.

 

Based as it is upon scholarly speculation -- not entirely uninfluenced by ideology -- you might want to be a little bit tentative about it.

 

The New Testament gives specific instructions about ordaining men to Priesthood offices.

 

I know.  I've read it.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Abulafia]

Scott, from a historical perspective, the narrative of the restoration of priesthood is not without it's problems both when compared with evidence from the earliest christian communities and also when looking at the timing and structure of the narrative itself. The story wasn't without controversy even with some of the closest friends of Joseph.

Pahoran, if you want to retrospectively fit the LDS narrative of priesthood restoration back into the early christian communities, from the evidence that we do have both in canon and non canonical sources then we run into problems. A lot of them. It is a fascinating area once one actually reads the texts carefully.

I'm not arguing from a faith position here, but from a historical one. One has to read the texts as they were written and not through the lens of the rightness of LDS, Catholic or Evangelical doctrine and practice.

The complexity is all there in plain site.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Just to highlight where I am coming from.

Here are some points for consideration.

Where was Matthew written, to whom, and why does it highlight Peter, with no mention of the other 'pillar'?

Who wrote Hebrews and when and how did the idea of an alternative authority to the Priests originate?

Given that Paul, our first hand witness in his genuine letters, mentions James as a leader, why has James role been so thoroughly sidestepped in the Gospels that made it into canon. This is a particularly interesting issue given the respect that Josephus gives to James in particular.

That's not a comprehensive list of questions, but a flavour.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Abulafia

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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.

Well said, Abulafia,

and reminiscent of Orson Pratt, who famously disagreed with Brother Brigham on doctrine -- for which Orson was disciplined.  Yet it is the Orson Pratt version of LDS theology which came to be dominant in the Church.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

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

True enough, BD,

Hyperbole is all too common on FB, on this Board, and in the Bible.  It's difficult to step back from all that and reflect dispassionately.

[why me]

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.

 

If I were completely outside the lds church, I would definitely support your position. Simply, I would want to challenge the lds church's decision too. And being outside the church, I would just want to see the church being led by falliable men and women. However, as you know, faithful lds do not see it this way. They believe that the lds church is led by god. So, the kelly verdict would come from god. Likewise for the priesthood being for men at this time. Unfortunately, chirst did not choose any female apostles...he chose 12 men. Why? This is the root of the problem. Maybe christ was sexist too. For after all, for atheists he was just a jewish man who had a message.

 

I know that it is easy to bring up the african american issue constantly to score points. But this was not an african american thing. It affected people from all over the world. And it wasn't a racist thing since there were many people with black skin who were baptized into the lds church and got the priesthood. It went deeper than skin color.

[BlueDreams]

True enough, BD,

Hyperbole is all too common on FB, on this Board, and in the Bible.  It's difficult to step back from all that and reflect dispassionately.

 

I personally don't think it's really possible to do so completely ever. But I do think it's important to be aware of our own biases and feelings when looking into things. Mine include a mix of pure curiosity (I find human behavior constantly fascinating), sadness for her, and irritation and at some moments disgust with her later comments. But it's usually just a melancholy and curious stance I have.

 

For example, when digging about, I found a 3 month old Reddit discussion where KK gave a Q+A. (see here). It's interesting to see some of the same elements that would become a problem in smaller pieces. The short problem was simply that she could not (and really wouldn't) see any other solution than the one she believes is right for the church. And she really really believed that there wouldn't be a problem, because she could see nothing wrong with her own tactics. Whether one sees her methods as right or wrong or in between, she just ignored any other voice but the "right one" as incorrect and didn't anticipate that those voices could really come out as damaging for her. That and she put herself in a david/goliath montage (well, shadrack/mechach/abednego v king). It's right v wrong or (probably more accurately for her at least pre-ex, Better v good). 

 

Personally, I don't think a "no" is going to come to the question KK insisted be asked. Not because the answer is yes but because it's no exactly the right question/expectation. I feel many of the talks, though imperfect, as well as scripture (to some extent) and the temple points to another answer and another question that is being asked up and down the line, which is also probably a little bit more basic and with a few less assumptions than Kate's. Namely how is the role of women to be understood and how is that to be utilized?

 

But that's just my personal sense of things.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

I know that it is easy to bring up the african american issue constantly to score points. But this was not an african american thing. It affected people from all over the world. And it wasn't a racist thing since there were many people with black skin who were baptized into the lds church and got the priesthood. It went deeper than skin color.

 

Pet peeve, off topic moment: AA is an ethnic group not a race (for both Abulafia and why me....a number of black people get annoyed by that). Black skin (or dark skin) is not a race it's a phenotype....it's like saying people with blonde hair are a race. Race is a sociological construct based on a variety of factors that includes (but isn't limited to) phenotype. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification). The ban was about race. It was at first more generalized to a number of people that had a similar phenotype but was specified to a specific "lineage..." ie. people of black african decent. Black african was considered a monolithic race (and in the US especially often still is). The reasoning, structure and ideals, follow old ideals about race in the 18th-19th centuries of the U.S. Structures that were intrinsically racist. And it was racist.

 

To say otherwise just looks like an overuse of semantics. It's like say a bat isn't flying, per se, because bats aren't birds and birds really do fly. What a bat's doing is something else.

 

::End pet peeve::

With luv,

BD 

[thesometimesaint]

Pet peeve, off topic moment: AA is an ethnic group not a race (for both Abulafia and why me....a number of black people get annoyed by that). Black skin (or dark skin) is not a race it's a phenotype....it's like saying people with blonde hair are a race. Race is a sociological construct based on a variety of factors that includes (but isn't limited to) phenotype. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification). The ban was about race. It was at first more generalized to a number of people that had a similar phenotype but was specified to a specific "lineage..." ie. people of black african decent. Black african was considered a monolithic race (and in the US especially often still is). The reasoning, structure and ideals, follow old ideals about race in the 18th-19th centuries of the U.S. Structures that were intrinsically racist. And it was racist.

 

To say otherwise just looks like an overuse of semantics. It's like say a bat isn't flying, per se, because bats aren't birds and birds really do fly. What a bat's doing is something else.

 

::End pet peeve::

With luv,

BD 

 

Race/phenotype is a touchy subject. No doubt about it. It does seem at times it is two steps forwards and one step back. I do believe we'll eventually get there, but in the mean time it is a slow often painful process.                    

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, from a historical perspective, the narrative of the restoration of priesthood is not without it's problems both when compared with evidence from the earliest christian communities and also when looking at the timing and structure of the narrative itself. The story wasn't without controversy even with some of the closest friends of Joseph.

 

If this is meant to be a response to my post, it is a non-responsive response.

 

This is what I wrote:

 

"Distilled and simplified" or not, I'm not aware of anything in the material prepared for use by missionaries that contradicts fact as it pertains to authority in the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

The Missionary guide Preach My Gospel is widely available and can be readily accessed online. Perhaps Abulafia can provide an example of something that's false or misleading in there as it pertains to authority.

 

I see no evidence here that Abulafia has endeavored to engage Preach My Gospel to sustain her assertion that "the development of the authority narrative is nowhere near as simple as the missionary discussions indicate." If she does not intend to so engage Preach My Gospel, she should say so.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Abulafia]

"After the appearance of the Father and the Son, other heavenly messengers, or angels, were sent to Joseph Smith and his associate Oliver Cowdery. John the Baptist appeared and conferred upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Aaronic Priesthood, which includes the authority to perform the ordinance of baptism. Peter, James, and John (three of Christ’s original Apostles) appeared and conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, restoring the same authority given to Christ’s Apostles anciently. With this priesthood authority, Joseph Smith was directed to organize the Church of Jesus Christ again on the earth. Through him, Jesus Christ called twelve Apostles."

This is what I taught as a missionary. This is what I was referring to. I think other threads have dealt with this topic. I don't want to derail, but as far as I understand, KK does not question the historical narrative, only the cultural and traditional assumption that women are to be excluded.

[smac97]

This is what I taught as a missionary. This is what I was referring to. I think other threads have dealt with this topic. I don't want to derail, but as far as I understand, KK does not question the historical narrative, only the cultural and traditional assumption that women are to be excluded.

I don't think the Church's position on priesthood ordination is accurately described as being merely based on "cultural and traditional assumptions."

Thanks,

-Smac