Kate Kelly Lost Appeal To First Presidency. Her Husband Is Resigning From The Church

[Nemesis]

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.

You need to read board rules, stay on topic and be careful with politicizing threads. Boards rules are located at the bottom right corner of every page.

Nemesis

[VideoGameJunkie]

I live in Massachusetts and surrounded by liberals and many don't feel comfortable with the church for political reasons. The church is very conservative, and leans heavily to the right, even if you try and throw in "Well Harry Reid is Mormon". Go to Utah and everyone's conservative.

[Duncan]

I live in Massachusetts and surrounded by liberals and many don't feel comfortable with the church for political reasons. The church is very conservative, and leans heavily to the right, even if you try and throw in "Well Harry Reid is Mormon". Go to Utah and everyone's conservative.

 

 

well, keep going to church, because if you split then 'they' win and then no one is there to challenge them on stuff

[DJBrown]

Here:

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.

 

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

 

But she was never in the state of apostasy.  Ever.

[strappinglad]

It is interesting how the meaning of words change so dramatically over time, even to becoming the opposite from the original. Here is part of wiki's essay on liberalism. I know of few conservatives that would not see themselves as champions of most liberalism as defined herein.

Liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as democratic elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.[2][3][4][5][6]

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[7] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America, and North America.[8] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state.[9][10] Today, liberal parties remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in many countries throughout the world.

Over time, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[11]

Edited March 1, 2015 by strappinglad

[ERayR]

But she was never in the state of apostasy.  Ever.

 

Huh ???

[DJBrown]

Huh ???

 

I am being facetious.  The feminists who are screaming for change insist that they are not in apostasy.  But so many of them say they are ready to leave the church..........

[Scott Lloyd]

I live in Massachusetts and surrounded by liberals and many don't feel comfortable with the church for political reasons. The church is very conservative, and leans heavily to the right, even if you try and throw in "Well Harry Reid is Mormon". Go to Utah and everyone's conservative.

The Church is what it is. Whether you're liberal or conservative, if your politics make you uncomfortable about the Church, it's your problem, not the Church's. (I mean "you" in the generic sense, not you personally.)

[NotaMormon]

This may have already been discussed, but this is very confusing to a non-Mormon. If the LDS prophets and apostles have already clearly said God doesn't want women ordained to the priesthood, why isn't that accepted at truth? If this OW movement doesn't trust church leadership on such a basic issue, why do they want to be part of the church at all? Why would they reject their teaching on priesthood basics, yet still trust their teaching on the gospel?

[Scott Lloyd]

This may have already been discussed, but this is very confusing to a non-Mormon. If the LDS prophets and apostles have already clearly said God doesn't want women ordained to the priesthood, why isn't that accepted at truth? If this OW movement doesn't trust church leadership on such a basic issue, why do they want to be part of the church at all? Why would they reject their teaching on priesthood basics, yet still trust their teaching on the gospel?

It's a question many of us in the Church have had for quite a while now.

I think it's a matter of them wanting to refashion the Church according to their own specs. Rather than starting one's own Church, it's cheaper -- and, I suppose, more appealing on some levels -- to seize control of someone else's.

[NotaMormon]

It's a question many of us in the Church have had for quite a while now.

I think it's a matter of them wanting to refashion the Church according to their own specs. Rather than starting one's own Church, it's cheaper -- and, I suppose, more appealing on some levels -- to seize control of someone else's.

No one in the OW movement has commented on this? It seems like a fairly simple question to just ask them why they trust the LDS leadership on many doctrines except this one.

 

Do you think it's a conscious effort to refashion and seize the Church, or are they honest and faithful, but misguided, Mormons? In other words, are they anti-Mormons trying to disrupt the church?

[Scott Lloyd]

No one in the OW movement has commented on this? It seems like a fairly simple question to just ask them why they trust the LDS leadership on many doctrines except this one.

 

Do you think it's a conscious effort to refashion and seize the Church, or are they honest and faithful, but misguided, Mormons? In other words, are they anti-Mormons trying to disrupt the church?

Why don't you ask them? I understand they have a website. Maybe they take questions.

[smac97]

No one in the OW movement has commented on this? It seems like a fairly simple question to just ask them why they trust the LDS leadership on many doctrines except this one.

I don't think that's a safe question for the OW to address. I think some of the OW folks, particularly those in leadership positions, are truly "radical" in their approach to the Church. I say "radical" in a quasi-political, alynskyite sense. Such folks are not be at all concerned about or afraid of resorting to tactics repellant to faithful, observant Latter-day Saints, such as A) publicly aligning themselves with excommunicated apostates, B) scheduling protests which are specifically designed to disrupt and distract from the Church's sacred convocations, C) exploiting the Church's good will by protesting on sacred ground in defiance of the Church and the secular law, D) publicly accusing LDS leaders of serious misconduct, E) threatening to sue LDS leadership and/or the LDS Church, F) being constantly inaccurate/dissembling/dishonest about their own motives/behaviors and about the conduct of the Church and its leaders, and so on and so forth. For these folks, I wonder if they want to impose their will on the Church, establish a precedent for imposing their will and having the Church capitulate to them, and then start being more vocal about some of the "many doctrines" to which they take exception, but about which they cannot presently speak because doing so exposes too much radicalism for the Church to accept up front. (For the record, I don't think this effort will succeed in any material sense because it relies on the Church behaving more like a political entity than what it is.)

I think there are some participants/supporters (many? most?) of the OW group who are genuinely devout and faithful, but who have let political indoctrination and popular opinion cloud their perception of what the Church is. I think many of these folks don't fully realize just how "radical" the OW group, or at least some of its key leaders, is/are.

And then there may be those who are neither mendacious (see the first paragraph above) or particularly faithful-but-kinda-duped (see second paragraph above), but who are just following the crowd, which in this case is the OW crowd.

 

Do you think it's a conscious effort to refashion and seize the Church,

I'm leaning toward that interpretation, yes. It's really hard to reconcile the mendacity of the behaviors we've seen from Kate Kelly and her ilk with a faithful, good faith effort to affect positive change in the Church.

 

or are they honest and faithful, but misguided, Mormons?

Both. See the first three paragraphs above.

 

In other words, are they anti-Mormons trying to disrupt the church?

At this point Kate Kelly appears to fit comfortably within my understanding of the term "anti-Mormon." We'll see what she does as time goes on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 2, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

Why don't you ask them? I understand they have a website. Maybe they take questions.

I've submitted several questions to the OW website and never received a response or acknowledgment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

DUP

Edited March 2, 2015 by smac97

[KevinG]

I am being facetious.  The feminists who are screaming for change insist that they are not in apostasy.  But so many of them say they are ready to leave the church..........

 

We really need a sarcasm emoji.  Any suggestions?

[The Nehor]

The Church is what it is. Whether you're liberal or conservative, if your politics make you uncomfortable about the Church, it's your problem, not the Church's. (I mean "you" in the generic sense, not you personally.)

My fascism makes others uncomfortable. Is that still my problem?

[Nofear]

We really need a sarcasm emoji.  Any suggestions?

 

[stemelbow]

This may have already been discussed, but this is very confusing to a non-Mormon. If the LDS prophets and apostles have already clearly said God doesn't want women ordained to the priesthood, why isn't that accepted at truth? If this OW movement doesn't trust church leadership on such a basic issue, why do they want to be part of the church at all? Why would they reject their teaching on priesthood basics, yet still trust their teaching on the gospel?

It comes down to whether or not your feel the LDS leadership is infallible or not. The official position of the Church is leaders are not infallible, but plenty of members treat them as such. Some think the Church, as in the leaders of the Church, have been wrong in certain circumstances in the past, and they are correct. So it's possible current LDS leadership is wrong about whether or not women can be ordained.

[ksfisher]

It comes down to whether or not your feel the LDS leadership is infallible or not. The official position of the Church is leaders are not infallible, but plenty of members treat them as such. Some think the Church, as in the leaders of the Church, have been wrong in certain circumstances in the past, and they are correct. So it's possible current LDS leadership is wrong about whether or not women can be ordained.

 

For that matter it's possible that they're wrong about everything they teach.  What it really comes down to is whether you trust our leaders enough to follow their guidance and counsel even when you know that they are fallible.  In the scriptures the Lord speaks many times about how he sustains and stands behind his leaders.  We need to decide to do the same, or follow some other path.

[stemelbow]

For that matter it's possible that they're wrong about everything they teach.  What it really comes down to is whether you trust our leaders enough to follow their guidance and counsel even when you know that they are fallible.  In the scriptures the Lord speaks many times about how he sustains and stands behind his leaders.  We need to decide to do the same, or follow some other path.

And I think this is the arena where the disagreement often centers upon. Do we just bow our heads and follow or do we speak our conscience trusting that God works in each of us? In different circumstances different people approach this differently, it seems to me. When it comes to OW, most just go right along with the Church's lead. When it comes to daily scripture study, or something, most members don't put their heads down and follow. Back when birth control debates were strong (almost laughable now) members didn't just put their heads down and follow. They simply decided birth control was best for them, until the Church decided to come out with that type of language too.

[bluebell]

It comes down to whether or not your feel the LDS leadership is infallible or not. The official position of the Church is leaders are not infallible, but plenty of members treat them as such. Some think the Church, as in the leaders of the Church, have been wrong in certain circumstances in the past, and they are correct. So it's possible current LDS leadership is wrong about whether or not women can be ordained.

 

I would say that this is probably the mindset of the majority of those involved in OW.  Leaders have been wrong in the past and so they believe they could easily be wrong on this issue.  Because the prophet and apostles have not come out and said "we have asked the Lord about ordaining women and He has said no" there will be room for people to believe this way.

 

If the leaders ever do come out and say something like the above though, then we would get to see what the exact agenda of OW is.  Under that circumstance it would be much much much more difficult for them to play the 'well you might be wrong, all we want you to do is ask' card that they are constantly playing now.

[stemelbow]

I would say that this is probably the mindset of the majority of those involved in OW.  Leaders have been wrong in the past and so they believe they could easily be wrong on this issue.  Because the prophet and apostles have not come out and said "we have asked the Lord about ordaining women and He has said no" there will be room for people to believe this way.

 

If the leaders ever do come out and say something like the above though, then we would get to see what the exact agenda of OW is.  Under that circumstance it would be much much much more difficult for them to play the 'well you might be wrong, all we want you to do is ask' card that they are constantly playing now.

But the leaders have been obstinately wrong in the past as well. Official statements from the First presidency have been disavowed as error, even. So even if the church or any of it's leaders say, "we have asked the Lord about ordaining women and He has said no", there is still plenty of room to disagree. After all, as far as I can see, no one believes that the method of continuing revelation is fool proof, neither the method of personal revelation. Its likely error creeps into our lives unbeknownst to us all the time.

[ksfisher]

And I think this is the arena where the disagreement often centers upon. Do we just bow our heads and follow or do we speak our conscience trusting that God works in each of us? In different circumstances different people approach this differently, it seems to me. When it comes to OW, most just go right along with the Church's lead. When it comes to daily scripture study, or something, most members don't put their heads down and follow. Back when birth control debates were strong (almost laughable now) members didn't just put their heads down and follow. They simply decided birth control was best for them, until the Church decided to come out with that type of language too.

 

So what is the point of sustaining prophets, seers, and revelators if we don't follow their counsel? 

[stemelbow]

So what is the point of sustaining prophets, seers, and revelators if we don't follow their counsel?

Beats me. I don't believe disagreeing on particular points of practice and belief is not sustaining or not following their counsel. I think we all do some picking and choosing from their messages as we apply it to our lives--all the time.

I'm not sure arguing "well you disagree with the leadership on OW therefore you aren't willing to listen and follow their counsel" works. I concede there's a point crossed in all of this. You can, for instance, think an apostle is up in the night when he says masturbating leads to homosexuality and yet still think he is a special witness for Christ. Indeed, I think most members think exactly that, in that particular case. Back when racist comments were coming out of the leadership's mouth I can think it would have been ok for a member to disagree with racism, as the Church has explicitly said is good now-a-days, and yet still sustain their leaders.