Popular Post smac97 Posted March 1, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) Here: Ordain Women co-founder Kate Kelly has lost her final appeal to regain membership in the Utah-based LDS Church. The activist, who is pushing for female ordination to the all-male Mormon priesthood, received word Saturday from her former lay leader in Virginia that the faith's governing First Presidency had rejected the appeal of her June 2014 excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "I am disappointed in the outcome, but not surprised since the disciplinary process has been entirely opaque and inequitable from the get-go," Kelly said in a news release posted on the Ordain Women website. "Fortunately, men do not control my happiness, nor do they control my connection to God." Wow. She's really strayed far. Now she's faulting the First Presidency (along with her stake president, whom she has threatened to sue, and her bishop, whom she has publicly denigrated as "cowardly" and "unchristlike"). This is saddening. The feminist also said that her husband, Neil Ransom, plans to resign his Mormon membership. The couple were married, or, in LDS parlance, "sealed," for eternity in 2006 in the Salt Lake LDS Temple. Under Mormon teachings, her excommunication — and his exit from the faith — would nullify that ordinance in heaven. "He was never punished by the church," Kelly said in an email, "in spite of doing many of the same things I was accused of." ... The excommunication was handed down by her then-bishop, Mark Harrison, in Virginia, and later upheld by her former LDS stake president, Scott Wheatley, a regional leader who oversees several Virginia Mormon congregations, including the one she had attended — though she was temporarily living in Utah at the time of her disciplinary hearing. ... Kelly, who now lives in Kenya, said Saturday that she got an email from Wheatley, informing her that the top leaders had affirmed the excommunication in a letter. But Wheatley did not allow the activist "to read or have access to the letter from them." Church spokesman Dale Jones said Saturday that "standard church protocol is for the First Presidency to send the decision directly to the church leader who held the council. That brief letter is simply a notification of the decision and nothing more." ... Saturday's news "saddened" Ordain Women Executive Board Chairwoman Debra Jenson. "We are profoundly troubled by a definition of apostasy that seems to include members asking sincere questions of our leaders," Jenson said in the group's news release. "We reaffirm our commitment to faithful action and our hope for gender equality in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." ... In his email to Kelly, Wheatley extended the First Presidency's "warm regards" and urged her to return to the LDS fold "in the prescribed way" — meaning to acknowledge her mistakes and repent. As Kelly said in June, however, she disputes that she did anything wrong. "Once the church changes to be a more inclusive place and once women are ordained," Kelly said then, "that's a place I'd feel welcome." Kate Kelly imposing conditions for her return to the Church, and one of those conditions being "once women are ordained" exposes the fundamental dishonesty of the OW position. Elsewhere in the article they characterize Ms. Kelly's excommunication for apostasy as being merely about "members asking sincere questions of our leaders." The OW group has been doing much more than than merely "asking sincere questions," as demonstrated by ... Kate Kelly. For OW to continue this charade smacks of bad faith on their part. Thanks, -Smac Edited March 1, 2015 by smac97 7
Storm Rider Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) I woke up this morning and went to the kitchen to make breakfast. Got out the yogurt, mango-citrus juice, baby bananas, apple, ice and made a delicious smoothie. I enjoy drinking this for breakfast. Hope your day goes well. I don't really see the need to ever talk about some of those fad issues again. Too bad about husband; glad she was there to talk for him. He must not speak or is capable of talking for himself. Moving on; this individual's fifteen minutes of fame are over. Edited March 1, 2015 by Storm Rider 3
mikegriffith1 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 I think that liberal Mormons will increasingly be forced to choose between their liberal ideology and the gospel of Jesus Christ, because the two are simply not compatible, no matter how liberal members try to rationalize away the differences. I had an intresting conversation recently with a sister in our ward who is a liberal. When she said she thought that a certain well-known politician in California was doing a good job and that she liked that person, I asked her how she, as a professing Latter-day Saint, could support a politician who is so openly pro-gay marriage, pro-gay adoption, and pro-unrestricted abortion, when the First Presidency and the Quroum of the Twelve have (1) officially endorsed the federal marriage amendment, (2) have said that we should do all we can to support efforts to ban gay marriage, and (3) have condemned the legalization of abortion and have stated that we should never be a party to elective abortion. Her somewhat testy, halting, rambling, defensive reply was a sad mix of misrepresentation of what the Church has said on these issues and the rationalization that she didn't have to agree with every position of a politician to think they were doing a good job overall. I pointed out that these issues are not minor issues but are vital, foundational issues that affect the health and morality of society, and that supporting candidates who are ardently pro-gay marriage and pro-unrestricted abortion clearly goes against the Church's directives (1) that we should do all we can to preserve the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and (2) that we should never be a party to an elective abortion. I observed that at the same time the First Presidency endorsed the federal marriage amendment and urged members in California to support Proposition 8, which called for banning gay marriage, the leaders of the party she was supporting called Proposition 8 "divisive and discriminatory" and "the product of small minds and narrow views." I then asked, "Are you aware that gay rights advocates in your party have gone to court to try to force churches to host same-sex marriages against their will and to try to punish religious business owners who have politely declined to servive same-sex marriages? Are you aware that some religious business owners have been fined for declining to service gay ceremonies?" She grew visibly more uncomfortable and jumped to the issue of abortion, noting that the Church allows abortion in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. After noting that such abortions accounted for the less than 5% of all abortions, I began to recount some of what the General Authorities have said about legalized abortion, including the recent talks by Elders Oaks and Nelson. I then asked her, "What about the 95% of abortions that are purely elective? How can anyone think they are following what the Church has said on elective abortion and then vote for a candidate who will do all in their power to not keep elective abortion legal and will oppose all restrictions on abortion? If this were the 1850s, wouldn't that be like saying that you deplored slavery but then voting for candidates who vowed to keep slavery legal and who pledged to resist all restrictions on slavery?" With those questions, the conversation was over. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/10/abortion-an-assault-on-the-defenseless?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/01/weightier-matters?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/our-moral-environment?lang=eng http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage 3
mikegriffith1 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 I think that liberal Mormons will increasingly be forced to choose between their liberal ideology and the gospel of Jesus Christ, because the two are simply not compatible, no matter how liberal members try to rationalize away the differences. I had an intresting conversation recently with a sister in our ward who is a liberal. When she said she thought that a certain well-known politician in California was doing a good job and that she liked that person, I asked her how she, as a professing Latter-day Saint, could support a politician who is so openly pro-gay marriage, pro-gay adoption, and pro-unrestricted abortion, when the First Presidency and the Quroum of the Twelve have (1) officially endorsed the federal marriage amendment, (2) have said that we should do all we can to support efforts to ban gay marriage, and (3) have condemned the legalization of abortion and have stated that we should never be a party to elective abortion. Her somewhat testy, halting, rambling, defensive reply was a sad mix of misrepresentation of what the Church has said on these issues and the rationalization that she didn't have to agree with every position of a politician to think they were doing a good job overall. I pointed out that these issues are not minor issues but are vital, foundational issues that affect the health and morality of society, and that supporting candidates who are ardently pro-gay marriage and pro-unrestricted abortion clearly goes against the Church's directives (1) that we should do all we can to preserve the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and (2) that we should never be a party to an elective abortion. I observed that at the same time the First Presidency endorsed the federal marriage amendment and urged members in California to support Proposition 8, which called for banning gay marriage, the leaders of the party she was supporting called Proposition 8 "divisive and discriminatory" and "the product of small minds and narrow views." I then asked, "Are you aware that gay rights advocates in your party have gone to court to try to force churches to host same-sex marriages against their will and to try to punish religious business owners who have politely declined to servive same-sex marriages? Are you aware that some religious business owners have been fined for declining to service gay ceremonies?" She grew visibly more uncomfortable and jumped to the issue of abortion, noting that the Church allows abortion in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. After noting that such abortions accounted for the less than 5% of all abortions, I began to recount some of what the General Authorities have said about legalized abortion, including the recent talks by Elders Oaks and Nelson. I then asked her, "What about the 95% of abortions that are purely elective? How can anyone think they are following what the Church has said on elective abortion and then vote for a candidate who will do all in their power to not keep elective abortion legal and will oppose all restrictions on abortion? If this were the 1850s, wouldn't that be like saying that you deplored slavery but then voting for candidates who vowed to keep slavery legal and who pledged to resist all restrictions on slavery?" With those questions, the conversation was over. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/10/abortion-an-assault-on-the-defenseless?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/01/weightier-matters?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/our-moral-environment?lang=eng http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage Ughh! A big typo: ". . . a candidate who will do all in their power to not keep elective abortion legal and will oppose all restrictions on abortion?" should read "a candidate who will do all in their power to keep elective abortion legal." Someone explained to me how to edit posts, but I don't see the option that they described.
bluebell Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) Ughh! A big typo: ". . . a candidate who will do all in their power to not keep elective abortion legal and will oppose all restrictions on abortion?" should read "a candidate who will do all in their power to keep elective abortion legal." Someone explained to me how to edit posts, but I don't see the option that they described.Just wanted to add that the church does not teach that we should never be s part of an elected abortion. (I'm not sure what exactly an elective abortion is since I've never heard of an unelected abortion but I'm using your wording). The church allows abortion, after prayer and counsel, for two very specific reasons. Any candidate's support of a complete ban on abortion would actually go against the teachings of the church.You can't edit until you've reached 25 posts. Edited March 1, 2015 by bluebell 1
bluebell Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 I read about KK last night before dinner. I agree that there are a lot of disconnects going on for people to still claim all she did was ask questions, and for her to claim she didn't do anything her husband didn't do. 2
Popular Post Kenngo1969 Posted March 1, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 1, 2015 I think that liberal Mormons will increasingly be forced to choose between their liberal ideology and the gospel of Jesus Christ, because the two are simply not compatible, no matter how liberal members try to rationalize away the differences. .... I'll take the word of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over yours any day, Brother Griffith. “Principles compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties. ..." Source: http://www.mormon.org/faq/political-beliefs 5
Senator Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 The OW group has been doing much more than than merely "asking sincere questions," as demonstrated by ... Kate Kelly. For OW to continue this charade smacks of bad faith on their part. Yeah, we know, smac.
Kevin Christensen Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 I don't think the conflict is between conservative or liberal attitudes, but of respect for the government of God versus Tantrumocracy. After all, a key event in Mormonism was when Joseph Smith read a scripture that said, "If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men conservatively, and constantly upbraideth anyone seeking further light and knowledge beyond the present Big Book of What to Think, and refers every request to the budget committee." Or something like that. FWIW Kevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA 2
smac97 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 Hope your day goes well. I don't really see the need to ever talk about some of those fad issues again. Too bad about husband; glad she was there to talk for him. He must not speak or is capable of talking for himself. Moving on; this individual's fifteen minutes of fame are over. I will be curious to see if the OW group's efforts and influence, such as they are, will wax or wane over time. I hope the latter. As far as talking about them, I don't see much harm in noting the conclusion of Kate Kelly's excommunication narrative. Thanks, -Smac
rockpond Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 For those still interested in understanding Kate Kelly's motivations with the Ordain Women advocacy as well as her faith, I recently listened to this "A Thoughtful Faith" podcast:http://athoughtfulfaith.org/#/063a-conversation-with-kate-kelly-feminist-and-optimist/?_=1425220010891It's an interview of Kelly by Gina Colvin. Well done though not particularly challenging. But it shows a side of Kelly that I don't think we get through media accounts or even Kelly's own press releases. Very fascinating.
mikegriffith1 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Just wanted to add that the church does not teach that we should never be s part of an elected abortion.(I'm not sure what exactly an elective abortion is since I've never heard of an unelected abortion but I'm using your wording).The church allows abortion, after prayer and counsel, for two very specific reasons. Any candidate's support of a complete ban on abortion would actually go against the teachings of the church.You can't edit until you've reached 25 posts. The Church does in fact teach that we should never be a part of an elective abortion. President Kimball said members should not only not submit to an abortion but should not participate in any abortion "in any way" (with the understood exception of rape, incest, and endangerment): "This Church of Jesus Christ opposes abortion and counsels all members not to submit to nor participate in any abortion, in any way, for convenience or to hide sins." (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say?lang=eng) "Elective abortion" is the common term used to refer to abortions that are done for reasons other than rape, incest, endangerment, and fatal deformity. It is a common term that one will find in several Church talks and articles on the subject. http://miketgriffith.com/files/ldsleadersonabortion.htm I have compiled some of the many General Authority/Church-published statements on abortion in the article linked below. Many more similar statements could have been included, but I didn't want the article to be too long.
mikegriffith1 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 The Church does in fact teach that we should never be a part of an elective abortion. President Kimball said members should not only not submit to an abortion but should not participate in any abortion "in any way" (with the understood exception of rape, incest, and endangerment): "This Church of Jesus Christ opposes abortion and counsels all members not to submit to nor participate in any abortion, in any way, for convenience or to hide sins." (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say?lang=eng) "Elective abortion" is the common term used to refer to abortions that are done for reasons other than rape, incest, endangerment, and fatal deformity. It is a common term that one will find in several Church talks and articles on the subject. http://miketgriffith.com/files/ldsleadersonabortion.htm I have compiled some of the many General Authority/Church-published statements on abortion in the article linked below. Many more similar statements could have been included, but I didn't want the article to be too long. Boy, this is getting really old! I'm tempted to post a dozen one-word replies just so I can reach 25 replies and edit my posts! I thought I was pasting the link after my last paragraph, but it turns out that I pasted it above the last paragraph. Here's how it should read: The Church does in fact teach that we should never be a part of an elective abortion. President Kimball said members should not only not submit to an abortion but should not participate in any abortion "in any way" (with the understood exception of rape, incest, and endangerment): "This Church of Jesus Christ opposes abortion and counsels all members not to submit to nor participate in any abortion, in any way, for convenience or to hide sins." (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say?lang=eng) "Elective abortion" is the common term used to refer to abortions that are done for reasons other than rape, incest, endangerment, and fatal deformity. It is a common term that one will find in several Church talks and articles on the subject. I have compiled some of the many General Authority/Church-published statements on abortion in the article linked below. Many more similar statements could have been included, but I didn't want the article to be too long. http://miketgriffith.com/files/ldsleadersonabortion.htm
Duncan Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 How did we go from Kate Kelly to talking about abortions?! 2
bluebell Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 How did we go from Kate Kelly to talking about abortions?!Evil liberals were brought up. 4
bluebell Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Boy, this is getting really old! I'm tempted to post a dozen one-word replies just so I can reach 25 replies and edit my posts! I thought I was pasting the link after my last paragraph, but it turns out that I pasted it above the last paragraph. Here's how it should read:The Church does in fact teach that we should never be a part of an elective abortion. President Kimball said members should not only not submit to an abortion but should not participate in any abortion "in any way" (with the understood exception of rape, incest, and endangerment):"This Church of Jesus Christ opposes abortion and counsels all members not to submit to nor participate in any abortion, in any way, for convenience or to hide sins." (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say?lang=eng)"Elective abortion" is the common term used to refer to abortions that are done for reasons other than rape, incest, endangerment, and fatal deformity. It is a common term that one will find in several Church talks and articles on the subject.I have compiled some of the many General Authority/Church-published statements on abortion in the article linked below. Many more similar statements could have been included, but I didn't want the article to be too long.http://miketgriffith.com/files/ldsleadersonabortion.htmIf elective means except under specific circumstances then I don't disagree. I've never heard the term used in that way but I don't have any desire to talk about abortion (and it has nothing to do with the thread) so as long as the church's position is correctly understood I'm done with the topic. 1
ksfisher Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 For the record, here is the church's official position on abortion:21.4.1 Abortion The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when: 1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest. 2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. 3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer. Church members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion may be subject to Church discipline. As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.21. Selected Church Policies and Guidelineshttp://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng 1
ksfisher Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Apologies for the poor formatting above.Interesting thread derail. 1
Calm Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) just as a fyi…..Mike Griffith, I suggest you go read the board guidelines if you don't want to end up getting put on limited or banned from threads too quickly. You should go into the three word thread in Social and get the rest of your 25 posts, then you can start your own threads in this forum instead of hijacking others with your pet political topics. Edited March 1, 2015 by calmoriah
teddyaware Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Evil liberals were brought up. I suppose it's just out of a morbid curiosity, but I'd be interested to know about Kate Kelly's post-excommunication views on abortion.
JLHPROF Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Ordain Women co-founder Kate Kelly has lost her final appeal to regain membership in the Utah-based LDS Church.The activist, who is pushing for female ordination to the all-male Mormon priesthood, received word Saturday from her former lay leader in Virginia that the faith's governing First Presidency had rejected the appeal of her June 2014 excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Seriously, on what grounds could she have possibly appealed. She did what she was accused of. It's all recorded. It did violate Church regulations.The result was unavoidable.What was there to appeal? 1
ksfisher Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Seriously, on what grounds could she have possibly appealed. She did what she was accused of. It's all recorded. It did violate Church regulations.The result was unavoidable.What was there to appeal?I believe that Kelly saw an appeal to the 1st Presidency as win-win for her. If she won her appeal then she could say that the Prophet had validated everything she's been teaching.If she lost she could say "I told you so" and point a finger at the big bad patriarchy that exists only to perpetuate itself.
Calm Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Seriously, on what grounds could she have possibly appealed. She did what she was accused of. It's all recorded. It did violate Church regulations.The result was unavoidable.What was there to appeal?Part of her original appeal pointed to improper procedures. One of her colleagues drafted a legal challenge to how things were handled, iirc.
Recommended Posts