Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[Vance]

I would like to congradulate Kate Kelly on one thing.  If one of her goals was to be a famous person in LDS history.  Mission Accomplished.

Nah. She will go the way of what's her name that supported the ERA. And that what's his name that did those cartoons in, where was it, Arizona, I think.

I don't really remember.

[Gray]

I think it is fair to say that Kate Kelly's bishop has had private communications with her.  Plus I think some of her public remarks could be fairly characterized as "interpretations of doctrine."

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I think she takes the moral position that discrimination based on gender is unethical. As far as I'm aware, the church has no doctrine on the subject at all, only policy. 

[Gray]

I think the main thing that has hindered the success of OW is forgetting the principle taught by the Savior - "turn the other cheek." It applies to both words and deeds. And while it is a passive approach, there is paradoxically no defense against it. 

 

More of that on both sides would lead to a lot of healing and reconciliation. 

[ksfisher]

I think she takes the moral position that discrimination based on gender is unethical. As far as I'm aware, the church has no doctrine on the subject at all, only policy. 

 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[BlueDreams]

I think the main thing that has hindered the success of OW is forgetting the principle taught by the Savior - "turn the other cheek." It applies to both words and deeds. And while it is a passive approach, there is paradoxically no defense against it. 

 

More of that on both sides would lead to a lot of healing and reconciliation. 

 

Oh, I think there were a few more problems than that. Personally the biggie for me was setting up their method of starting 'dialogue' with the church/church body as more of a directive (this is what should be expected by the outcome of you praying/leading the church) than just a statement of personal desire. And continuing their message in a manner of proselyting and recruitment than stating a personal opinion to discuss and seek other's opinions. From what I've seen, the organization was not very interested in any other view but their own as holding weight. If you didn't believe in Female ordination, then you were a believer/maintainer in gender inequality was an underlying message in a number of their talking points. That's not something that'll get you far. 

 

 

In a sense they were not only unwilling to turn the other cheek, but they were often throwing the first punch. And that was a problem for even those who may have more supported their blog or right to have some voice in the mormon public square. I had no problem with their website when it was initially launched. It gave me a first hand look into the beliefs of those who wanted female ordination and reading and learning, helped to hone my own perspective and learn as well to study the issue out for myself. I did not agree with their stance then and my earnest study has not changed that, but I learned and grown from the search. But the longer they've gone, the more a number of their ideals, tactics, and words (especially Kate's at times...she's made a number of inflammatory remarks especially toward moderate fem's who don't hold her view about ordination) bothered me. And each turn, pointed less to this idea of dialogue and more of a way to push their position without any acknowledgment that there may be a different way of viewing things and moving forward as a community. Because of that a lot of their tactics became self alienating.    

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

I think she takes the moral position that discrimination based on gender is unethical.

All forms of discrimination? Really?

As far as I'm aware, the church has no doctrine on the subject at all, only policy.

The key words here being "As far as I'm aware."

Thanks,

-Smac

[DJBrown]

It's becoming more and more apparent that her intent all along was to hijack the Church. Now, she's encouraging her followers to remain and bring about the goal she failed to achieve.

 

I had the thought this morning that, ironically, Kelly's behavior matches perfectly the scriptural definition of priestcraft.  

 

2 Nephi 26:29  "For, behold priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion."

[Gray]

All forms of discrimination? Really?

The key words here being "As far as I'm aware."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

As far as any of us are aware. 

[Gray]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

I'm not sure hanging on to old cultural baggage is heavenly, especially when it causes so much pain

[Nemesis]

Gray be part of the discussion stop trying to be purposefully obtuse with your one liners. Everyone stay on topic at this point I will start removing people from threads if it continues.

Nemesis

[smac97]

As far as any of us are aware.

What's this "us," kemosabe?

The OW group has analogized the gender-based restriction on the priesthood with the race-based restriction on the priesthood. The priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak. This is why Elder McConkie stated as follows (speaking of prior explanations for the ban): "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting the priesthood to men. So the distinction between the current understanding/explanation of gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination and previous understandings/explanations of race-based restrictions on priesthood ordination deserves attention.

See also here for a brief discussion of this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

I don't know where it will end but if a lot of people have to be disciplined to keep the Church going straight, such will be the case.  There is no reason to believe the Church will not have trials like the Nephite Church had trials.  If the Book of Mormon is a pattern for a day, we should expect more of it but we know who wins in the end.

 

This assumes that disciplining a lot of people will keep the Church "going straight".

 

I actually thought that the increased openness we were seeing (gospel topics pages, recent gen con talks by Uchtdorf, Holland, Christofferson) had the church moving in a very positive direction.  Since I believe that at least part of the impetus for that was the general consciousness being raised by Mormon stories, OW, Pure Mormonism, and other podcasts/blogs, it feels like a step backward to begin disciplining them).

[Gray]

Gray be part of the discussion stop trying to be purposefully obtuse with your one liners. Everyone stay on topic at this point I will start removing people from threads if it continues.

Nemesis

 

I'm not trying to be obtuse - I'm trying to be as honest as I can about my views. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. I'll bow out of discussions here if you think that's best. 

[Gray]

What's this "us," kemosabe?

The OW group has analogized the gender-based restriction on the priesthood with the race-based restriction on the priesthood. The priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak. This is why Elder McConkie stated as follows (speaking of prior explanations for the ban): "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting the priesthood to men. So the distinction between the current understanding/explanation of gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination and previous understandings/explanations of race-based restrictions on priesthood ordination deserves attention.

See also here for a brief discussion of this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The last thing I'll say on this topic is so far no one has been able to point out a scripture that bans women from priesthood to me. The church's PR spokeswoman couldn't do that either, when asked by Doug Fabrizio. So I think we're on similar shaky ground as we we were with blacks and the priesthood.

 

It's been nice discussing these issues with everyone. I wish you all the best on your spiritual journeys. I hope we can all seek to find ways of communicating with greater kindness and love, if not always agreement.

 

Goodbye!

[smac97]

This assumes that disciplining a lot of people will keep the Church "going straight".

 

I actually thought that the increased openness we were seeing (gospel topics pages, recent gen con talks by Uchtdorf, Holland, Christofferson) had the church moving in a very positive direction.

I see no reason to view these developments in the past tense. Plenty of people are having open discussions. The Church is publishing articles on difficult/controversial issues (race and the priesthood, violence in 19th century Mormonism, etc.).

Kate Kelly went too far in her advocacy and in defying the Church. Her excommunication, while surely unfortunate, is by no means the death knell of the Church's increasing openness.

Since I believe that at least part of the impetus for that was the general consciousness being raised by Mormon stories, OW, Pure Mormonism, and other podcasts/blogs, it feels like a step backward to begin disciplining them).

I don't think it's a "step backward," but is instead a cautionary tale about the risk of going too far.

I also think credit should be given to the Church regarding its patience toward John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, etc. John Dehlin has been doing his thing for many years now. Kate Kelly's rise and fall was more swift, but even then her local leaders went to significant lengths to work with her. And it took some pretty outrageous actions on her part before she was excommunicated.

There is no knee-jerk, "say one out-of-line word and you're outta here" sentiment going on in the Church. Excommunications based on apostasy are really quite rare. I think we can agree on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

I see no reason to view these developments in the past tense. Plenty of people are having open discussions. The Church is publishing articles on difficult/controversial issues (race and the priesthood, violence in 19th century Mormonism, etc.).

Kate Kelly went too far in her advocacy and in defying the Church. Her excommunication, while surely unfortunate, is by no means the death knell of the Church's increasing openness.

I don't think it's a "step backward," but is instead a cautionary tale about the risk of going too far.

I also think credit should be given to the Church regarding its patience toward John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, etc. John Dehlin has been doing his thing for many years now. Kate Kelly's rise and fall was more swift, but even then her local leaders went to significant lengths to work with her. And it took some pretty outrageous actions on her part before she was excommunicated.

There is no knee-jerk, "say one out-of-line word and you're outta here" sentiment going on in the Church. Excommunications based on apostasy are really quite rare. I think we can agree on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I agree that this is clearly not a "knee-jerk" reaction by the Church.  It looks like Kelly's priesthood leaders had been working with her for some time.  But since I still see no reason for Dehlin to be facing discipline, I can't quite get on board with the idea that the Church is being "patient" with him.

 

And, I agree that excommunications based on apostasy are very rare in the church.  But I still wonder if they will stop with these "12" that have recently made the news or if there will be more since Dehlin/Kelly are not the only active members behind their respective MS/OW organizations.

[ksfisher]

 

 

 I still wonder if they will stop with these "12" that have recently made the news or if there will be more since Dehlin/Kelly are not the only active members behind their respective MS/OW organizations.

 

Are there more than Dehlin, Kelly, and Waterman?  I hadn't heard of any others in the news.  But, there have been so many news stories that it's been hard to keep track of them all.

[smac97]

I agree that this is clearly not a "knee-jerk" reaction by the Church.  It looks like Kelly's priesthood leaders had been working with her for some time.  But since I still see no reason for Dehlin to be facing discipline, I can't quite get on board with the idea that the Church is being "patient" with him.

I respect your perspective on this. Perhaps we can concede that reasonable minds can disagree about John Dehlin. The fact that he has been "on the radar" of his local leaders for ten years, and yet still retains his membership in the Church, would seem to indicate that the Church is fairly patient with folks vis a vis questions about "apostasy."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

I agree that this is clearly not a "knee-jerk" reaction by the Church.  It looks like Kelly's priesthood leaders had been working with her for some time.  But since I still see no reason for Dehlin to be facing discipline, I can't quite get on board with the idea that the Church is being "patient" with him.

 

And, I agree that excommunications based on apostasy are very rare in the church.  But I still wonder if they will stop with these "12" that have recently made the news or if there will be more since Dehlin/Kelly are not the only active members behind their respective MS/OW organizations.

 

I personally don't think that the excommunication will stop with KK and JD (if he even is x'ed).  They have deluded enough other members with their philosophies that some will pop up and take their fallen mantle; they also will be excommunicated.  Others will be called to repentance and will heed the call; still others will be wander off into darkness all the while blaming the Church of Jesus Christ for their problems and the terrible, intolerant leaders who just could not see the wonderful world they would create if only they were in charge of the Church.  

Edited June 25, 2014 by Storm Rider

[frank_jessop]

I think she takes the moral position that discrimination based on gender is unethical.

All]/b] forms of discrimination? Really?Thanks,-Smac

No not "really". And it is absurd and completely unreasonable to suggest otherwise.It is horribly unreasonable to interpret Gray's opinion on a very specific form of discrimination, better yet, a very specific protected class, and ask "All forms of discrimination? Really/". No rational reading of Gray's statement could be construed as "all forms of discrimination".

[Yirgacheffe]

I respect your perspective on this. Perhaps we can concede that reasonable minds can disagree about John Dehlin. The fact that he has been "on the radar" of his local leaders for ten years, and yet still retains his membership in the Church, would seem to indicate that the Church is fairly patient with folks vis a vis questions about "apostasy."

Thanks,

-Smac

Ten years? Why are they so patient with him and not with her?

[Storm Rider]

Ten years? Why are they so patient with him and not with her?

 

There was a distinct difference in the actions of the these two individuals.  

[Zakuska]

So back to the topic, Kelly's Verdict instead of John D. Water, hooser whats it, She's excommunicated not for "Apostasy" nor "teaching false doctrine." But...

 

- Having done so, our determination is that you be excommunicated for conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church

 

Basically Disorderly Conduct. Santa knows if you've been naughty or nice!

 

The question is... if the Tribunal didn't follow the correct procedures as outlined in the by laws of the church and Scriptures.  Should we excommunicate them for "conduct contray to the laws and order of the church?"

Edited June 24, 2014 by Zakuska

[rockpond]

Are there more than Dehlin, Kelly, and Waterman?  I hadn't heard of any others in the news.  But, there have been so many news stories that it's been hard to keep track of them all.

 

http://www.nearingkolob.com/coordination-list-members-facing-church-discipline/

[rockpond]

I personally don't think that the excommunication will stop with KK and JD (if he even is x'ed), they have deluded enough others into their thought philosophies that some will pop up and take their fallen mantle; they also will be excommunicated.  Others will be called to repentance and will heed the call; still others will be wander off into darkness all the while blaming the Church of Jesus Christ for their problems and the terrible, intolerant leaders who just could not see the wonderful world they could create if they were in charge.  

 

Dehlin has acknowledged, multiple times, the difficult task and responsibilities that they Brethren have.  And has said that he would not want to be in their shoes.  I think your characterization is unfair.