First Presidency Statement On Priesthood, Doubt And Apostasy

[halconero]

New statement released today:

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/prophets-and-apostles/recent-messages/june-first-presidency-statement.pdf?lang=eng

Edit: A clear and concise statement by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve on ordination to the Priesthood, asking questions, and acting in defiance.

Edited June 28, 2014 by halconero

[jwhitlock]

Thanks for posting this. Very clear, as you said.

[smac97]

Here: https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng

 

June 28, 2014

 

In God's plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women. Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices. All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God. We express profound gratitude for the millions of Latter-day Saint women and men who willingly and effectively serve God and His children. Because of their faith and service, they have discovered that the Church is a place of spiritual nourishment and growth.

We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

The Council of

The First Presidency and

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

A few thoughts:

1. This appears to be a response to the ruckus raised by Kate Kelly.  The last paragraph in particular seems like a fairly straightforward, rebuke of Kate Kelly's repeated false statement about her being excommunicated for merely asking questions.  

2. I wonder what Kate Kelly's response will be. Sadly, I suspect it will be something along the lines of: "That statement issued on June 28 does not state whether or not the Brethren have sought a revelation on the subject or, if they did, that they sought a revelation and the answer was no, or the statement by the First Presidency has not been presented as a revelation to the Church, so it is not binding and does not mean anything at all, really. So until they clarify the June 28 statement, we will carry on with our protesting and demonstrations against the Church 'faithful agitation.'"

 

3. I genuinely hope I am wrong about #2.  I hope Kate Kelly repents and returns to the Church and full fellowship.

 

4. I wish the media were not so in the bag for Kate Kelly.  I am concerned that journalists will rush to her breathlessly looking for a response to this.  Some of them will salivate at the prospect of a toe-to-toe argument between the First Presidency and Kate Kelly.  And to that end they may end up trying to provoke her into taking an even more strident position in opposition to the Church.

 

5. From the Tribune: 

 

The 15 men were clearly responding to this week’s disciplining of Mormon feminist and Ordain Women founder Kate Kelly, who was excommunicated by her lay leaders in Vienna, Va., for pushing to open up the faith’s priesthood to women.

And from KSL:

 

The statement comes at the end of a week in which media attention focused on the decision of an LDS bishop in Virginia to excommunicate Kate Kelly for action he said “has threatened to erode the faith of others.”

...

In the church's most recent general priesthood meeting, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, noted the doctrinal bounds LDS leaders act under with regard to sharing priesthood ordination and authority.

...

Elder Oaks said that although they are not ordained to the priesthood, LDS women already act with the authority of the priesthood in their church callings.

...

Elder Oaks made those remarks during a meeting that was the subject of a direct action protest by Kelly and the Ordain Women group.

...

A national survey of Mormons found that 90 percent of Mormon women oppose the ordination of women. The percentage rises to 95 percent among LDS women with a high religious commitment.

 

Any other thoughts?

 

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2014 by smac97

[MorningStar]

Their statement reflects exactly how I feel.

[Rain]

I don't feel it is a rebuke. Rather I think it is for those who are questioning. I've heard many worry about whether their membership is in jeopardy for questioning. Now some of them can put their minds at ease.

[smac97]

I don't feel it is a rebuke. Rather I think it is for those who are questioning. I've heard many worry about whether their membership is in jeopardy for questioning. Now some of them can put their minds at ease.

 

You raise a good point.  Perhaps it is both a rebuke to Kate Kelly specifically and also counsel to others in the Church who are worrying as you describe.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2014 by smac97

[Abulafia]

There's an interesting full stop after the first sentence.  Which indicates that the second statement is a reflection of policy rather than (also) part of God's plan.

It's an ambiguous statement that can be seen more than one way.

[Grudunza]

It's a great statement. Based on the wording, though, I don't see how John Dehlin (or Rock Waterman) would qualify as apostates. Disagree with them at times as I may, and as waffling as Dehlin seems to be between being faithful and doubtful, I don't think they fit the definition as given. It will be interesting to see how their situations turn out.

[Duncan]

Here: https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng

 

A few thoughts:

1. This appears to be a response to the ruckus raised by Kate Kelly.  The last paragraph in particular seems like a fairly straightforward, rebuke of Kate Kelly's repeated false statement about her being excommunicated for merely asking questions.  

2. I wonder what Kate Kelly's response will be. Sadly, I suspect it will be something along the lines of: "That statement issued on June 28 does not state whether or not the Brethren have sought a revelation on the subject or, if they did, that they sought a revelation and the answer was no, or the statement by the First Presidency has not been presented as a revelation to the Church, so it is not binding and does not mean anything at all, really. So until they clarify the June 28 statement, we will carry on without protesting and demonstrations against the Church 'faithful agitation.'"

 

3. I genuinely hope I am wrong about #2.  I hope Kate Kelly repents and returns to the Church and full fellowship.

 

4. I wish the media were not so in the bag for Kate Kelly.  I am concerned that journalists will rush to her breathlessly looking for a response to this.  Some of them will salivate at the prospect of a toe-to-toe argument between the First Presidency and Kate Kelly.  And to that end they may end up trying to provoke her into taking an even more strident position in opposition to the Church.

 

5. From the Tribune: 

 

And from KSL:

 

 

Any other thoughts?

 

-Smac

 

I was wondering that too, why the NYT would even pick up the story, I would love to see how Dehlin and Kelly told the NYT about their situations

[Calm]

Smac, I think autocorrect gave you a "without" rather than a "with our"

"The 15 men were clearly responding to this week’s disciplining..."

No, they were responding to the response to the discipline.

[thesometimesaint]

I am glad to see that the type of tactics taught in Saul Alinsky's book "Rules For Radicals" won't work on the Church.  Turmoil is resisted.  Confusion is dispelled.  Calm prevails.

 

Please keep your politics out of my religion.

[smac97]

Smac, I think autocorrect gave you a "without" rather than a "with our"

Thanks. It's fixed.

"The 15 men were clearly responding to this week’s disciplining..."

No, they were responding to the response to the discipline.

That sounds about right. They are saying the same thing that that bishop involved in the excommunication said, so it doesn't really make sense to say they were "responding" to the bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

There's an interesting full stop after the first sentence.  Which indicates that the second statement is a reflection of policy rather than (also) part of God's plan.

It's an ambiguous statement that can be seen more than one way.

Because if it was a revelation from God it wouldn't use periods???

[Abulafia]

Because if it was a revelation from God it wouldn't use periods???

Just checked the Trib article linked above.  KK sees the same ambiguity.

 

 

The fact that LDS priesthood offices are reserved for men, Kelly said, is "an accurate reflection of current practice, but it doesn’t say women will never be ordained or anything about women’s roles or connection to the priesthood."

The Mormon officers, she said, "left that wide open for the future."

[cinepro]

It's an ambiguous statement that can be seen more than one way.

 

The first paragraph seems to address only two possible aspects of the priesthood: the "blessings" of the priesthood ("equally available to men and women"), and "serving in priesthood offices" (men only). 

 

That leaves out a fundamental aspect of "the priesthood" in the Church: acting with God's power and authority to bless the lives of others, and receiving greater blessing in return.  The Church teaches:

 

The Lord has promised great blessings to righteous priesthood holders who use the priesthood to bless others:

 

“Then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

 

“The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever” (D&C 121:45–46).

 

President David O. McKay promised every man who uses the priesthood in righteousness that he “will find his life sweetened, his discernment sharpened to decide quickly between right and wrong, his feelings tender and compassionate, yet his spirit strong and valiant in defense of right; he will find the priesthood a never failing source of happiness—a well of living water springing up unto eternal life” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay [2003], 116).

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-13-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

I can't really blame a woman for reading that and thinking "hey, I too would like to find my life sweetened and my discernment sharpened, and my feelings tender and compassionate, and my spirit strong and valiant, with a never ending source of happiness springing up to eternal life."  Who wouldn't want that?

[Duncan]

The first paragraph seems to address only two possible aspects of the priesthood: the "blessings" of the priesthood ("equally available to men and women"), and "serving in priesthood offices" (men only). 

 

That leaves out a fundamental aspect of "the priesthood" in the Church: acting with God's power and authority to bless the lives of others, and receiving greater blessing in return.  The Church teaches:

 

 

 

I can't really blame a woman for reading that and thinking "hey, I too would like to find my life sweetened and my discernment sharpened, and my feelings tender and compassionate, and my spirit strong and valiant, with a never ending source of happiness springing up to eternal life."  Who wouldn't want that?

 

everyone can and should have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion! if a woman reads that and wants that then they should serve, just like priesthood holders are counseled to do. The Priesthood is dormant unless we do something with it and become something through  exercising it

 

I really like Elder Derek A. Cuthbert's talk about the Spirituality of Service

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/04/the-spirituality-of-service?lang=eng

Edited June 28, 2014 by Duncan

[Calm]

I can't really blame a woman for reading that and thinking "hey, I too would like to find my life sweetened and my discernment sharpened, and my feelings tender and compassionate, and my spirit strong and valiant, with a never ending source of happiness springing up to eternal life."  Who wouldn't want that?

Every now and then someone makes the argument there is no personal benefit to having the Priesthood given that they can't give themselves blessings, etc.

 

I always wonder if they have been reading the same manuals, scriptures and other teachings I have been…including the one you cite.

[smac97]

Here is Kate Kelly's response according to the Tribune:

 

Saturday’s statement, Kelly said, gives her reason to hope that when she appeals her case to the First Presidency, her bishop’s decision might be reversed.

Kelly was also encouraged by what the leaders said about questions.

Church members "are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding," the leaders reiterated, but added, "we feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them."

That’s a "great step in the right direction," Kelly said. "Now questions [about women’s ordination] can be asked in every ward and every branch in every place in the world.

"The prophet of the church," she pointed out, "just said it’s OK."

Wow. A few thoughts here:

1. I have a hard time accepting Kate Kelly saying this message gives her "reason to hope" that her excommunication will be reversed. Her bishop told her she was not excommunicated for having and asking questions:

The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe 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. This is the basic point that President Wheatley has sought repeatedly to explain to you, but to no avail. You have also heard from from President Lee and me on this. Your disregard of our advice and counsel left us know alternative but to convene last evening's council.

And now the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve (!) have issued a statement including the same message:

We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

Does Kate Kelly believe this letter applies to her? Does she believe the First Presidency had her and others like her in mind when they define "apostasy?" If no, then she has no business saying anything about this letter. If yes, then I don't see how this letter could be at all "encouraging" in terms of continuing to agitate and proselyte.

 

Kate Kelly is a lawyer.  If an appellate court echoes the same reasoning which was used by the trial court, then that means that the trial court was correct in its reasoning.  As a corollary, if the First Presidency echoes the same reasoning which was used by Kate Kelly's bishop, then that means that the bishop was correct in his reasoning.  That reality may be hard for Kate Kelly to face, who has repeatedly declared that she has done nothing wrong and has nothing to repent of, that her bishop is a liar and cowardly and unchristlike, and that the disciplinary process against her was flawed.

2. It comes across as arrogant and presumptuous for Kate Kelly to respond to a message from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles which directly and specifically addresses the point she has raised ("Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices") by saying that this message is merely a "great step in the right direction."

3. It comes across as delusional for Kate Kelly to respond to this message, which includes the specific statement that "Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices," by saying "Now questions [about women’s ordination] can be asked in every ward and every branch in every place in the world."

What on earth is she talking about? The Brethren have just said that "only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices." What further "questions" about female ordination does she have in mind to be asked?

4. An important component of the Restored Gospel is priesthood authority. I think we all get that. What I don't get is Kate Kelly's persistent disregard of the very authority she seeks. What kind of priesthood leader would she be, given the example she has showcased to the world? Even if she were ordained to the priesthood, would anyone listen to her counsel and follow it after she has repeatedly and publicly flaunted her spectacular skill at disregarding priesthood counsel given to her?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 28, 2014 by smac97

[juliann]

Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices.

 

I see no ambiguity here.  However, it is present tense.  And I wouldn't expect otherwise in an ongoing Restoration. But that would give me no indication of any immediate change or possibility of one.  This statement holds until there is change...which may be never. It could just as easily be said they chose this grammar to prevent the inevitable onslaught were they to have said "will ever be."

 

All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God

 

This has more possibilities, IMO.  Because the problem is not God's eyes...it is our eyes.  Women do not have equal merit in man's eyes and when they don't, their service doesn't (aside from being a really big help to the men.) That is what the church is slowly fixing by allowing prayers in General Conference and putting up pictures of women leaders.  It goes back to my belief that what needs to be fixed before anything else is the cultural attitude toward women that has seeped into the church.

[CA Steve]

Maybe I am misinterpreting the statement but it seems only to affirm the status quo for who can actually serve in priesthood offices without specify who cannot. IOW while it does say men are ordained to those offices, it does not say women cannot be, either now or in the future.

[MorningStar]

Here is Kate Kelly's response according to the Tribune:

 

Wow. A few thoughts here:

1. I have a hard time accepting Kate Kelly saying this message gives her "reason to hope" that her excommunication will be reversed. Her bishop told her she was not excommunicated for having and asking questions:

The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe 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. This is the basic point that President Wheatley has sought repeatedly to explain to you, but to no avail. You have also heard from from President Lee and me on this. Your disregard of our advice and counsel left us know alternative but to convene last evening's council.

And now the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve (!) have issued a statement including the same message:

We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

Does Kate Kelly believe this letter applies to her? Does she believe the First Presidency had her and others like her in mind when they define "apostasy?" If no, then she has no business saying anything about this letter. If yes, then I don't see how this letter could be at all "encouraging" in terms of continuing to agitate and proselyte.

 

Kate Kelly is a lawyer.  If an appellate court echoes the same reasoning which was used by the trial court, then that means that the trial court was correct in its reasoning.  As a corollary, if the First Presidency echoes the same reasoning which was used by Kate Kelly's bishop, then that means that the bishop was correct in his reasoning.  That reality may be hard for Kate Kelly to face, who has repeatedly declared that she has done nothing wrong and has nothing to repent of, that her bishop is a liar and cowardly and unchristlike, and that the disciplinary process against her was flawed.

2. It comes across as arrogant and presumptuous for Kate Kelly to respond to a message from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles which directly and specifically addresses the point she has raised ("Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices") by saying that this message is merely a "great step in the right direction."

3. It comes across as delusional for Kate Kelly to respond to this message, which includes the specific statement that "Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices," by saying "Now questions [about women’s ordination] can be asked in every ward and every branch in every place in the world."

What on earth is she talking about? The Brethren have just said that "only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices." What further "questions" about female ordination does she have in mind to be asked?

4. An important component of the Restored Gospel is priesthood authority. I think we all get that. What I don't get is Kate Kelly's persistent disregard of the very authority she seeks. What kind of priesthood leader would she be, given the example she has showcased to the world? Even if she were ordained to the priesthood, would anyone listen to her counsel and follow it after she has repeatedly and publicly flaunted her spectacular skill at disregarding priesthood counsel given to her?

Thanks,

-Smac

She said herself in one of her interviews that she is a "delusional optimist", so I guess it's not too suprising that she's reading into like that, but the Church seems to be stating that doing what she did will get one excommunicated.  She's still stuck on this belief that she was just asking questions when she wasn't.

[jwhitlock]

 

I can't really blame a woman for reading that and thinking "hey, I too would like to find my life sweetened and my discernment sharpened, and my feelings tender and compassionate, and my spirit strong and valiant, with a never ending source of happiness springing up to eternal life."  Who wouldn't want that?

 

I'm confused. Where has the church taught that women can't have any of those blessings currently?

Edited June 28, 2014 by jwhitlock

[juliann]

 

3. It comes across as delusional for Kate Kelly to respond to this message, which includes the specific statement that "Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices," by saying "Now questions [about women’s ordination] can be asked in every ward and every branch in every place in the world."

What on earth is she talking about? The Brethren have just said that "only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices." What further "questions" about female ordination does she have in mind to be asked?

 

The same things we are asking here. Or the question an 8 year old girl asked my daughter in a Sunday School lesson, "Why can't I have the priesthood?"  

 

Ally Isom, in the Doug Frabrizio interview,  said that RS was a safe space to discuss these things, based on Pres. Burton's statement. In essence, they really are saying that the best place to have these discussions is amongst ourselves in a safe space (Relief Society)

 

[emphasis added]

 

Fabrizio: In a congregation a woman could stand up and say that?

 

 

 

Isom:  In my congregation we can.  I love what Sis. Burton just said. . .women shoulder burdens, we come from so many backgrounds, but we have to be each others' safe space. It has to be through one another that we have these conversations.

 

 

 

Isom: There are many avenues to express that and discuss that.  No one is questioning your ability in a congregation, in a Sunday school class, in a Relief Society class  Quoting President Burton: We have to be each other's safe space, it has to be through one another that we can have this conversation.

 

 

 

Fabrizio:  So it's ok for a woman in a Relief Society meeting to stand up and say, you know within the proper context of the lesson and whatever, [isom:]  Respectfully.  [Fabrizio] Respectfully.  "Hey, sisters, let's talk about the possibility that it's time now, for church leaders, like they did with the priesthood and blacks, to change that.  There were lessons from history where women reportedly gave blessings and we did have this power and it sort of went away with us. . .let's talk about that.  The church is cool with that?

 

 

 

[isom] The conversation is welcome.  We've had a similar conversation in my Relief Society about gay marriage. . .we have those conversations, it is a safe place.  It has to be through one another that we have these conversations.

[smac97]

Maybe I am misinterpreting the statement but it seems only to affirm the status quo for who can actually serve in priesthood offices without specify who cannot. IOW while it does say men are ordained to those offices, it does not say women cannot be, either now or in the future.

 

The message states: "Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices."

 

What do you understand the word "only" to mean?  How do you reconcile the above sentence with your interpretation that "it does not say women cannot be (ordained), either now or in the future?"

 

The "in the future" part I get, but not the "either now" bit.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[juliann]

I'm confused. Where has the church taught that women can't have any of those blessings currently?

 

Do you really have no awareness that you are saying that the priesthood is irrelevant to these blessings attached to it because anybody can have them just because? Why would you want to do that?  Why diminish the priesthood simply to win a debate?