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

[NotaMormon]

Well there was no written revelation provided for the ending of the ban either so I don't know why this would be any different.  Instead of a written revelation we get OD-2, which reads as much like one of the essays/a press release as it does a revelation.

 

I personally don't think we will see another "Hi, this is God speaking directly" kind of revelation in our lifetime.  It will continue to be spiritual confirmations announced by press releases and proclamations.  The old school kind of revelation would just bring about public mockery.

 

Of course, this does raise the question, is God changing the method of revelation or are we?

I was wondering the same thing. I saw someone mention an interview President Hinckley gave where OW was mentioned and his comment about revelation was confusing.

 

"RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?

GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy."

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm

 

He makes it sound like God will remain silent on an issue as long as most of the church is "happy" and "satisfied," regardless of whether or not the church has the wrong view on the issue. I don't think that's how revelation worked in the Bible. Humans have a remarkable ability to rationalize sinful and ungodly behavior, especially when scripture doesn't address the specific issue. So why would human happiness and satisfaction, which can easily be clouded by sin, play such an important role?

 

If one person is happy and satisfied in their sin, I can see why God may just let them continue. But this question of revelation is much bigger than one person's walk with God. This is a fundamental question about one of the most important roles in the church. Would God really wait for flawed people to agitate about the issue before he gives a revelation?

 

How else can we take Hinckley's response?

[teddyaware]

That doesn't answer my question...

 

I have no doubt but that God has inspired our leaders to lead the Church in the particular manner it's now being led. The Church is absolutely awash in revelation, at least for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. But for those who are not similarly equipped, it all just seems to go right past them as if they are unaware the heavens remain open -- just as they were in the early days of the restoration -- and still pouring forth great effusions of heavenly light. Most every General Conference address is every bit as much scripture as are the epistles of the New Testament and Book of Mormon, but because the prophets end their inspired addresses in the name of Jesus Christ rather than by invoking the dramatic phrase "thus saith then Lord," many of the "drowsy" are unaware of the fact that for all intents and purposes, when it comes to the teachings of the prophets, both expressions mean precisely the same thing.

 

The adversary is real, and he and those who are under his influence patiently wait for the living prophets, seers and revelators to "slip up" so that they might gain a strategic advantage in their war against God's kingdom on earth; but because our Church leaders are as wise as serpents but simultaneously as gentle doves the useful "pickings" they are able to glean from the prophets' words are relatively few and far between.

Edited March 4, 2015 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

 

He makes it sound like God will remain silent on an issue as long as most of the church is "happy" and "satisfied," regardless of whether or not the church has the wrong view on the issue. I don't think that's how revelation worked in the Bible.

 

Scripturally (and historically) revelation generally comes in two ways - when a question is asked or when a command is given.

 

If nobody asks a question - no revelation

If nothing needs to be commanded - no revelation

 

Pres. Hinckley said there was no agitation to ask.  And based on your arguement there is no revelation on the issue so the Church must have it right.

 

(Of course there exceptions to these two, but expecting an exception isn't sensible)

[Calm]

an interview President Hinckley gave where OW was mentioned

 

Just an FYI….Ordain Women has only been going for a few years.  President Hinckley's interview was many years before it started (1997 I believe).

[NotaMormon]

Scripturally (and historically) revelation generally comes in two ways - when a question is asked or when a command is given.

 

If nobody asks a question - no revelation

If nothing needs to be commanded - no revelation

 

Pres. Hinckley said there was no agitation to ask.  And based on your arguement there is no revelation on the issue so the Church must have it right.

 

(Of course there exceptions to these two, but expecting an exception isn't sensible)

If Hinckley said something like 'God hasn't corrected the church on the issue of women in the priesthood for 150 years, so this must be what God wants,' then that would have made more sense. But that's not what he said.

 

Like I said in my post, this issue is much bigger than one person's walk with God. And it's not some question about a minor issue that doesn't impact how the church is run. Most Mormons I've talked to make it sound like the office of the priesthood is one of the most important aspects of the church. If the church is wrong about this, wouldn't that be a pretty big mistake? Hinckley's comment makes it sound like the church might have the doctrine wrong, but he's not going to worry about it as long as people are happy and satisfied. Why does human happiness and satisfaction have to do with whether or not a church has a serious doctrine wrong or not?

 

Just an FYI….Ordain Women has only been going for a few years.  President Hinckley's interview was many years before it started (1997 I believe).

Here's the interviewer's question: "At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?"

 

Okay, so it wasn't an official movement yet. But the question and issue is basically the same in 1997 and now.

[Calm]

Definitely.  OW isn't the first to bring up the issue.

[slamarwi]

I agree. Enough publicity for Kate already.

...and her husband

 

Sayonara

[ERayR]

If Hinckley said something like 'God hasn't corrected the church on the issue of women in the priesthood for 150 years, so this must be what God wants,' then that would have made more sense. But that's not what he said.

 

 

Lets be clear.  What makes sense to you may not make sense to someone else and what makes sense to someone else may not make sense to you.

[stemelbow]

Scripturally (and historically) revelation generally comes in two ways - when a question is asked or when a command is given.

 

If nobody asks a question - no revelation

If nothing needs to be commanded - no revelation

 

Pres. Hinckley said there was no agitation to ask.  And based on your arguement there is no revelation on the issue so the Church must have it right.

 

(Of course there exceptions to these two, but expecting an exception isn't sensible)

I'm not sure you are correct on this, but I'm not expert on revelation. It does seem like revelation, as reported by many people in my life, has come out of nowhere. Not to command but to inspire and instruct.

[JLHPROF]

I'm not sure you are correct on this, but I'm not expert on revelation. It does seem like revelation, as reported by many people in my life, has come out of nowhere. Not to command but to inspire and instruct.

 

Perhaps, but I am referring to revelation to the Church as a body, not to individual personal revelation.

I look through the recorded revelations to the Church body and see virtually none that I would consider purely inspirational without either answering a question or instructing/commanding.  And I group instruct and command together.  If God instructs us to do something, that's basically a commandment anyway.

[stemelbow]

Perhaps, but I am referring to revelation to the Church as a body, not to individual personal revelation.

I look through the recorded revelations to the Church body and see virtually none that I would consider purely inspirational without either answering a question or instructing/commanding.  And I group instruct and command together.  If God instructs us to do something, that's basically a commandment anyway.

I see.

[rongo]

I take the new revelation to be the one in OD-2. After that was received, the theories of the past to explain the ban became irrelevant and were disavowed.

 

 

OD-2 itself doesn't "disavow the theories of the past" or render the ban "irrelevant." In fact, it acknowledges "promises made by prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us" and states that God, "by revelation, has confirmed that the long-promised day has come." 

 

They didn't need a new revelation for each line of the essays (the essays are not the revelation or the means of revelation), and what is written obviously reflects their thinking and attitude.

 

I don't see it as a given that the essays "obviously reflect their thinking and attitude" per se. The corporate Church today, in my opinion, outsources a lot of things to the bureaucracy (COB) that in the past were directly overseen and directed by them. For instance, I don't think most of the Brethren today know from their own study many of the details and intricacies in the essays. That was outsourced to faithful historians/experts (who admittedly had the difficult task of explaining and contextualizing difficult issues where the Brethren have not gone on the record). Yes, the essays were approved, but I don't think that this denotes careful scrutiny per se. I think that the Brethren use and trust the bureaucracy for many agenda items in running and administering the corporate Church today. (Example: church magazines. The Ensign has a much different focus and direction than it did in previous decades (what I call "People Magazine-ization") [e.g., two paragraph First Presidency messages, a lot of recycled content, endless "name withheld" articles about porn addiction, singles who have trouble getting married, depression, etc.] . I think that this is due to the editorial board's [Church employees] orientation, and not direct involvement from the Brethren. They approve by not micro-managing and letting the employees set the direction they want ---- and they would intervene if there were something really radical . . .]

 

I see the essays as something that was perceived as needed that was outsourced to "our best people" and approved. But with anonymity and built-in deniability if the sands shift.

[rongo]

In the spirit of providing an alternative perspective, I rather think they are  as wise as serpents and harmless as doves in their use of the tools and techniques available in our day, which I believe the Lord expects them to use. I think they are very focused on the essential elements of the duties of their calling (D&C 107:23) without fear of doing the right thing in the right way.

I admittedly tend to lean much more towards "wise as serpents" (from my perspective). I do need to do a better job of being optimistic (what I would see as "harmless as doves"). 

[Buzzard]

When OW was raising a ruckus, my impression was that Elder Oak's talk was a direct answer and response. And that's where OW really went off the rails. They had asked the question, and the brethren gave them the answer, but instead of accepting the answer, they just said "We'll keep asking until we get the answer we want". Didn't work for Martin Harris, didn't work for Kate Kelly.

[NotaMormon]

Lets be clear.  What makes sense to you may not make sense to someone else and what makes sense to someone else may not make sense to you.

I've talked with enough Mormons to understand that. That's why I ended my post by asking "How else can we take Hinckley's response?" Isn't the doctrine about who does and doesn't get the priesthood very important? Why would he put so much trust into the idea that 'church members are happy and satisfied, so it must be okay'? People can fool themselves into thinking they're happy and satisfied with lifestyles God doesn't want, but that doesn't mean they're okay.

 

Perhaps, but I am referring to revelation to the Church as a body, not to individual personal revelation.

I look through the recorded revelations to the Church body and see virtually none that I would consider purely inspirational without either answering a question or instructing/commanding.  And I group instruct and command together.  If God instructs us to do something, that's basically a commandment anyway.

Wouldn't the issue of the priesthood be too important for God to take a 'If nobody asks a question' approach? If the church is wrong on it, that seems like a pretty important mistake. It doesn't sound like a mistake God would wait until people aren't 'happy and satisfied' with to correct them on.

[JLHPROF]

Wouldn't the issue of the priesthood be too important for God to take a 'If nobody asks a question' approach? If the church is wrong on it, that seems like a pretty important mistake. It doesn't sound like a mistake God would wait until people aren't 'happy and satisfied' with to correct them on.

 

This line of thinking is based on the premise that the Church IS wrong.

 

1. If the Church was wrong and nobody bothered to ask, God would correct it else our error would be his fault and not ours as we would be lacking in knowledge.

2. If the Church was wrong and they asked and asked and asked God would respond to correct our error if he in fact felt the doctrine was wrong, not allow us to keep sinning.  That would also be God's fault for not answering.

3. If the Church is right all the asking in the world isn't going to change that.

 

I just don't see how this results in women receiving the priesthood. 

 

Everyone pushing for ordination is putting their hopes in #2 and assuming that we haven't asked enough. 

But situations #1 & #2 presume that God doesn't want his Church to remain in error and teaching falsehoods.

If the question has been asked and God could allow it it would have happened.  If the question wasn't being asked because we didn't know we were wrong God would correct us (eventually).  Either way, we would know.

Edited March 4, 2015 by JLHPROF

[NotaMormon]

This line of thinking is based on the premise that the Church IS wrong.

 

1. If the Church was wrong and nobody bothered to ask, God would correct it else our error would be his fault and not ours as we would be lacking in knowledge.

2. If the Church was wrong and they asked and asked and asked God would respond to correct our error if he in fact felt the doctrine was wrong, not allow us to keep sinning.  That would also be God's fault for not answering.

3. If the Church is right all the asking in the world isn't going to change that.

 

I just don't see how this results in women receiving the priesthood. 

 

Everyone pushing for ordination is putting their hopes in #2 and assuming that we haven't asked enough. 

But situations #1 & #2 presume that God doesn't want his Church to remain in error and teaching falsehoods.

If the question has been asked and God could allow it it would have happened.  If the question wasn't being asked because we didn't know we were wrong God would correct us (eventually).  Either way, we would know.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for OW here. I'm just trying to understand what Hinckley believed about revelation on important issues. Why would act like he's waiting for people to not be 'happy and satisfied' to ask? Why would people being happy and satisfied be a factor at all?

[stemelbow]

To be clear, I'm not advocating for OW here. I'm just trying to understand what Hinckley believed about revelation on important issues. Why would act like he's waiting for people to not be 'happy and satisfied' to ask? Why would people being happy and satisfied be a factor at all?

Yeah...it could have been more of a "if it works don't fix it" type of idea.

[thesometimesaint]

To be clear, I'm not advocating for OW here. I'm just trying to understand what Hinckley believed about revelation on important issues. Why would act like he's waiting for people to not be 'happy and satisfied' to ask? Why would people being happy and satisfied be a factor at all?

 

There is an old story about a child that didn't talk till he was 5 years old. There was once upon a time a boy was born. He appeared healthy and happy but he didn't talk. Then when he was 5 years old he was sitting the dinner table and said out loud "Please pass the salt" His family was stunned, and asked him why he did not talk before. His answer was "Everything was fine up until now".

Edited March 4, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

When OW was raising a ruckus, my impression was that Elder Oak's talk was a direct answer and response. And that's where OW really went off the rails. They had asked the question, and the brethren gave them the answer, but instead of accepting the answer, they just said "We'll keep asking until we get the answer we want". Didn't work for Martin Harris, didn't work for Kate Kelly.

It did actually work for Martin Harris.....just did not end up the way he and Joseph expected it to.

[why me]

I was wondering the same thing. I saw someone mention an interview President Hinckley gave where OW was mentioned and his comment about revelation was confusing.

 

"RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?

GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy."

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm

 

He makes it sound like God will remain silent on an issue as long as most of the church is "happy" and "satisfied," regardless of whether or not the church has the wrong view on the issue. I don't think that's how revelation worked in the Bible. Humans have a remarkable ability to rationalize sinful and ungodly behavior, especially when scripture doesn't address the specific issue. So why would human happiness and satisfaction, which can easily be clouded by sin, play such an important role?

How else can we take Hinckley's response?

I think that you are misreading it. At that time, most women were happy in the church. There was no internet to agitate mormons into this or that cause. And not many women would question the role the of the priesthood and who should have it. However, Hinckley did state that women could get the priesthood if there is a revelation. And of course that would be true. But the agitators would need to accept a no answer. But are they ready to accept such an answer? It doesn't seem so.

 

By the way, many people are sinning and yet, they are still happy.

Edited March 4, 2015 by why me

[smac97]

I've talked with enough Mormons to understand that. That's why I ended my post by asking "How else can we take Hinckley's response?" Isn't the doctrine about who does and doesn't get the priesthood very important?

Yes, it's important.

 

Why would he put so much trust into the idea that 'church members are happy and satisfied, so it must be okay'?

I am not sure the Church's position about priesthood ordination was fully set forth in Pres. Hinckley's televised interview. Nevertheless, he was specifically asked about women being ordained, and he correctly stated that A) such a thing would require a revelation from God, and B) there was not, in 1997, "agitation" for such a thing in the body of the Saints. Even today, polls strongly indicate that the vast majority of LDS (more women than men, in fact) oppose the idea of female ordination (see here).

 

So perhaps the more appropriate question should be: "Should the leaders of the LDS Church hop to every time a tiny minority of self-selected agitators demand a change in doctrine?"  I think the answer to such a question is fairly self-evident.

 

Personally, I am open to the idea of women being ordained to the priesthood.  A broad reading of the Ninth Article of Faith seems to allow for such a possibility.  Frankly, I do not think such a thing will happen, but that stems from my overall study and perception of the Restored Gospel, not from the insinuations presented from agitators and critics of the Church (namely, that the Brethren are a bunch of geriatric misogynists who are unrighteously depriving women of their "right" to the priesthood).

 

In any event, I support the Brethren in their leadership of the Church.  I think they are good and decent men who, individually and collectively, have a strong and thorough understanding of the scriptures and the Restored Gospel.  I believe they are generally in strong and ongoing communion with God.  I trust their judgment regarding inquiries that merit serious and sacred consideration.  I also believe that there are many things discussed amongst them that are not fully disclosed to the world.  I also believe that the talk by Elder Oaks was a fairly direct response to the issue of women and the priesthood.

 

In contrast, I place very little faith or trust in the OW group.  I do not find them to be generally credible or trustworthy.  I find their tactics and rhetoric unseemly, offensive, rebellious, and dissembling.  I find Kate Kelly's antics disturbing and sad.  I reject as dishonest and misleading their published "mission statement" of only wanting the Brethren to "take this matter to the Lord" (since such a claim, although sounding Mormonish, is fundamentally at odds with their repeated demands elsewhere that women be ordained, and that "nothing less will suffice").  I do not believe the OW group is acting in good faith.  I think the OW group is treating the Church like a political entity to be cajoled and coerced through threatened and actualized "agitation" tactics such as what we have seen previously.  I do not think such a group should be given unilateral authority to tell the Brethren what's what.

 

People can fool themselves into thinking they're happy and satisfied with lifestyles God doesn't want, but that doesn't mean they're okay.

Fair enough. But I think Pres. Hinckley's point was simpler than that. Folks like the OW group are demanding an answer to a question that the vast majority of Saints are either not asking, or else oppose the answer the OW group is demanding.

I am not sure what the decision-making process is for the Brethren when they, in unity and in a most sacred manner, take a specific issue or question before the Lord. However, I do not think that demands from a bunch of self-appointed agitators, who have already declared that they will only accept their preferred answer to the proposed question, should be given much, if any, consideration in that process.

 

Wouldn't the issue of the priesthood be too important for God to take a 'If nobody asks a question' approach?

I think you are reading too much (or, put another way, not nearly enough) into President Hinckley's remarks. One response in a single television interview from 18 years ago cannot be construed as the Church's total treatment of this issue.

 

If the church is wrong on it, that seems like a pretty important mistake.

First, that's a big "if." It is nowhere near self-evident that "the church is wrong" on this issue. To the contrary, there is a very strong argument to be made that the Church's teachings reflect the will and mind of God on this issue.

Second, if the Church is "wrong," in that it is God's will that women be ordained, I think the Brethren will sort things out and proceed accordingly. Meanwhile, the OW group has already dictated to the Church the only answer to this issue which they find acceptable. Theirs is not a request for revelation from God. Theirs is a demand for the Brethren to capitulate to their opinion. I just don't think God governs His kingdom that way.

Third, if the Church is "wrong," then the Ninth Article of Faith allows us to fix things and move along.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2015 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

It did actually work for Martin Harris.....just did not end up the way he and Joseph expected it to.

 

It's worked many times for many members - they've wearied the Lord with their pleading and he's allowed them enough rope to hang themselves.

[The Nehor]

It's worked many times for many members - they've wearied the Lord with their pleading and he's allowed them enough rope to hang themselves.

I am still wearying the Lord with my pleading. Give me my rope already!

[cursor]

We certainly all need very understanding "rope."