Section 132: Of Man Or God?

[Calm]

The OW mission statement says that they sincerely ask our church leaders to take the matter to the Lord in prayer.

At this point, they don't leave the answer up to God though.  From the OW front page:

 

As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

 

Edited March 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

It's not controversial at all. Quinn's homosexuality was well known among his BYU colleagues for some time. Shortly after his excommunication, he gave an interview to "Out" Magazine, in which he described his homosexual feelings as "overwhelming." He'd self-identified as "gay" since at least his mission.

I think you'll find that, if you ask your "gay" friends, they'll confidently tell you that homosexuality is pervasive and immutable.

Regards,

Pahoran

Additional speculation doesn't satisfy the CFR.

[Pahoran]

I imagine she's given it the same consideration that you've given to the thought that you might be wrong.

I've thought about what I would do if the brethren announced that women were to be ordained. I decided that I would accept their decision.

That's because I don't see male-only ordination as an immutable principle. However, I have considered the possibility that I may be wrong on that point, and am prepared to accept correction on it.

Can Ms Kelly say the same?

Can Mister Rockpond?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

The OW mission statement says that they sincerely ask our church leaders to take the matter to the Lord in prayer.

Yes, such is their marketing blurb.

But the statements they make when they're not trying to put one over on believing Latter-day Saints tells a rather different story, as has been amply documented in this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

And like most true beleivers you can't consdier the possibility that they (the LDS leaders) could be wrong and others right...about a variety of matters and things.

I'm sure they could in fact be wrong on a number of topics, while others might be right.

But if you choose to set aside your complete mistrust of them for just a moment -- call it a thought experiment, and that way it might not be too great an effort -- you might come to the conclusion that, given their demonstrated competence in their specific area of work, namely Church governance, the likelihood that they would all be wrong on how the Church should be governed, and that an agitator who is unquestionably influenced by a particular strand of left-wing thought, and who has not demonstrated any particular competence in LDS doctrine, history or practice, would be right, would appear to be vanishingly small.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited March 16, 2015 by Pahoran

[rockpond]

No they don't. Look at this statement

"Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings." http://ordainwomen.org/mission/

That statement alone tells me that they have already decided the issue. They want a revelation to formalize what they have already decided for themselves.

Why should the GA ask God to get an answer for Ordain Women want? The GA should ask God in prayer on matters that are important to them. God house is one of order. If God does want women to be ordained, he will inspire the GA to ask in prayer for themselves. He is not going to go outside proper channels and have some fringe group of women initiate it. The Church would become a house of disorder if individual members started their little groups and demanded a revelation for this or that pet issue they have.

Their mission page has both statements. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[jwhitlock]

Listening to her talk about her faith.

 

Interesting. Why are you so willing to accept what she says at face value, but unwilling to accept what church leaders say at face value?

 

Or are you coming from the perspective that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't really have faith in Christ and are not Christ's servants?

[rockpond]

I've thought about what I would do if the brethren announced that women were to be ordained. I decided that I would accept their decision.

That's because I don't see male-only ordination as an immutable principle. However, I have considered the possibility that I may be wrong on that point, and am prepared to accept correction on it.

Can Ms Kelly say the same?

Can Mister Rockpond?

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes. My opinion is about the same as yours (as expressed in your concluding paragraph here).

[rockpond]

Interesting. Why are you so willing to accept what she says at face value, but unwilling to accept what church leaders say at face value?

Or are you coming from the perspective that the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't really have faith in Christ and are not Christ's servants?

I believe her when she shares her testimony. And I don't feel the need to demonize her. I don't see that as particularly productive. She has many facets to her personality and belief system like everyone here. Maybe I frequently defend her and Dehlin because I know what it's like for people to make assumptions about you.

I believe our church leaders are very faithful servants of Christ.

[rockpond]

But they won't take no for an answer. They just assume that their way is the right way.

I'm sure for some that is true, but remember... OW is not a homogenous group. It's made up of hundreds of church members, former members, and non-members -- all with their own unique thoughts, beliefs, and intentions.

[jwhitlock]

I believe her when she shares her testimony. And I don't feel the need to demonize her. I don't see that as particularly productive. She has many facets to her personality and belief system like everyone here. Maybe I frequently defend her and Dehlin because I know what it's like for people to make assumptions about you.

I believe our church leaders are very faithful servants of Christ.

 

Yet here's the paradox that needs to be resolved. The church, which is defined as the only true and living church of Christ, and which has leaders who are put in place by Christ have excommunicated her as an apostate. She has come out in open opposition to Christ's church.  Yet we are supposed to accept that she has faith in Christ, according to her claim.

 

Since the scriptures are very clear that Christ's house is not a house divided, how are we supposed to resolve such a paradox when it comes to apostates that clearly reject something established by Christ, yet claim to have faith in Christ?

[rockpond]

Yet here's the paradox that needs to be resolved. The church, which is defined as the only true and living church of Christ, and which has leaders who are put in place by Christ have excommunicated her as an apostate. She has come out in open opposition to Christ's church. Yet we are supposed to accept that she has faith in Christ, according to her claim.

Since the scriptures are very clear that Christ's house is not a house divided, how are we supposed to resolve such a paradox when it comes to apostates that clearly reject something established by Christ, yet claim to have faith in Christ?

I don't really see a paradox to resolve. We're all just flawed, multi-faceted individuals. AKA mortals children of God.

Kelly isn't 100% wrong. The leaders aren't 100% right.

If you listen to Kelly (really listen, not just sound bites), she doesn't reject it all. Just like I imagine that her priesthood leaders have seen the good that she has and the faith/testimony that she still holds. But they couldn't have her continue with those actions and remain a member. And she should have listened to them. But I won't put her in a "black hat" for that one mistake (even though it was a biggie).

[why me]

I don't really see a paradox to resolve. We're all just flawed, multi-faceted individuals. AKA mortals children of God.

Kelly isn't 100% wrong. The leaders aren't 100% right.

If you listen to Kelly (really listen, not just sound bites), she doesn't reject it all. Just like I imagine that her priesthood leaders have seen the good that she has and the faith/testimony that she still holds. But they couldn't have her continue with those actions and remain a member. And she should have listened to them. But I won't put her in a "black hat" for that one mistake (even though it was a biggie).

We see what we want to see and this is no different when we look at kate and her positions.

 

For exmaple, people can call for the restoration of polygamy in the lds church. They can now claim that since same sex marriage is becoming the norm, there is no reason not to begin the discussion on the restoration of polygamy. Members could organize an RP campaign complete with a website that exclaims that polygamy must be restored and in public this group can just say they want the church leadership to pray to HF about it. But in the meanwhile, agitate in the wards for it by holding discussions about it, a sort of missionary type discussion program. Why not? They would certainly have the right to do it. But how would you feel about such an organization that shows a two-sidedness about it: it must be restored/take it to heavenly father in prayer.  This is the tactic of OW.

 

Maybe I should start the RP organizatioin. Trust me I will also not just be giving soundbites. And yes, I will also claim that I have a testimony of the gospel and still hold it and that I am an active member who just wants equal rights for those who will support polygamy in the church. In fact, kate and I can work together so that all members will have equal rights, even the polygamists who have been exed should have their membership restored and their rights protected to continue its practice.

 

Sometimes we need to use our sociological imagination and take a step outside our own shoes to see the world anew. Will you support me Rockpond? I need people on the boards taking up my cause. I only ask for the leaders to pray about it but really, it must be restored.

 

No church can function like the above situations. There would be chaos. And the critics know it. No church is a demcracy, nor can it ever be. And certainly Paul is a good example of this when he wrote his letters admonishing the local churches to be of one mind.

Edited March 16, 2015 by why me

[Pahoran]

I don't really see a paradox to resolve. We're all just flawed, multi-faceted individuals. AKA mortals children of God.

Kelly isn't 100% wrong. The leaders aren't 100% right.

See, this is where a little critical thinking can be helpful. The two statements above are not corollaries. I can fully accept that Ms Kelly isn't 100% wrong; but that does not entail that the leaders aren't 100% right -- at least, as regards the matter at issue.

Ms Kelly's actions in drumming up support for her envy campaign were incompatible with membership in a covenant community of Saints. Her bishopric found them so; her stake presidency upheld their decision; and the First Presidency concurs.

Now, maybe Ms Kelly disagrees, but she's not exactly an unbiased observer; and neither you nor I nor anyone else is privy to the deliberations of those councils.

It isn't much of a whodunit. In fact, it's an open and shut case. Ms Kelly has committed her misdeeds in plain sight. The only people who disagree that she should be excommunicated are (1) those who don't understand what excommunication actually means -- such as the dilettantes who rely on silly, superficial notions of Church discipline being "medieval" -- and (2) those who tend to identify with her.

Such as her fellow apostates.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited March 16, 2015 by Pahoran

[rockpond]

We see what we want to see and this is no different when we look at kate and her positions.

For exmaple, people can call for the restoration of polygamy in the lds church. They can now claim that since same sex marriage is becoming the norm, there is no reason not to begin the discussion on the restoration of polygamy. Members could organize an RP campaign complete with a website that exclaims that polygamy must be restored and in public this group can just say they want the church leadership to pray to HF about it. But in the meanwhile, agitate in the wards for it by holding discussions about it, a sort of missionary type discussion program. Why not? They would certainly have the right to do it. But how would you feel about such an organization that shows a two-sidedness about it: it must be restored/take it to heavenly father in prayer. This is the tactic of OW.

Maybe I should start the RP organizatioin. Trust me I will also not just be giving soundbites. And yes, I will also claim that I have a testimony of the gospel and still hold it and that I am an active member who just wants equal rights for those who will support polygamy in the church. In fact, kate and I can work together so that all members will have equal rights, even the polygamists who have been exed should have their membership restored and their rights protected to continue its practice.

Sometimes we need to use our sociological imagination and take a step outside our own shoes to see the world anew. Will you support me Rockpond? I need people on the boards taking up my cause. I only ask for the leaders to pray about it but really, it must be restored.

No church can function like the above situations. There would be chaos. And the critics know it. No church is a demcracy, nor can it ever be. And certainly Paul is a good example of this when he wrote his letters admonishing the local churches to be of one mind.

Since I'm not a supporter of the OW cause, I don't think I'd be a supporter of your RP cause. Sorry.

[rockpond]

See, this is where a little critical thinking can be helpful. The two statements above are not corollaries. I can fully accept that Ms Kelly isn't 100% wrong; but that does not entail that the leaders aren't 100% right -- at least, as regards the matter at issue.

Ms Kelly's actions in drumming up support for her envy campaign were incompatible with membership in a covenant community of Saints. Her bishopric found them so; her stake presidency upheld their decision; and the First Presidency concurs.

Now, maybe Ms Kelly disagrees, but she's not exactly an unbiased observer; and neither you nor I nor anyone else is privy to the deliberations of those councils.

It isn't much of a whodunit. In fact, it's an open and shut case. Ms Kelly has committed her misdeeds in plain sight. The only people who disagree that she should be excommunicated are (1) those who don't understand what excommunication actually means -- such as the dilettantes who rely on silly, superficial notions of Church discipline being "medieval" -- and (2) those who tend to identify with her.

Such as her fellow apostates.

Regards,

Pahoran

You misunderstood me. When I said that our leaders aren't 100% right I wasn't speaking exclusively of her disciinary council. From everything I understand about that (which is limited), they made the correct decision.

But no church leaders is right 100% of the time. And similarly, Kelly isn't 100% wrong.

[jwhitlock]

I don't really see a paradox to resolve. We're all just flawed, multi-faceted individuals. AKA mortals children of God.

Kelly isn't 100% wrong. The leaders aren't 100% right.

If you listen to Kelly (really listen, not just sound bites), she doesn't reject it all. Just like I imagine that her priesthood leaders have seen the good that she has and the faith/testimony that she still holds. But they couldn't have her continue with those actions and remain a member. And she should have listened to them. But I won't put her in a "black hat" for that one mistake (even though it was a biggie).

 

I suspected that the only way to resolve the paradox was to deny that the paradox really existed. Convenient, but not really satisfactory.

 

As Pahoran mentioned, in this particular case concerning Kate Kelly's excommunication, the leaders are 100% right. In this decision, the will of God  has been manifest through His church and servants. You can either accept or reject the decision as coming from God, but you cannot claim that Kelly's faith in Christ is consistent and in harmony with what Christ has manifest through His church. It's choose one or the other, not both.

 

Interesting that you would mention that Kelly "doesn't reject it all", thus inferring that there are some thing she does reject. Are the things she rejects considered part of the true church of Christ?  If so, what does that tell us about her faith in Christ?

Edited March 16, 2015 by jwhitlock

[Tacenda]

We see what we want to see and this is no different when we look at kate and her positions.

For exmaple, people can call for the restoration of polygamy in the lds church. They can now claim that since same sex marriage is becoming the norm, there is no reason not to begin the discussion on the restoration of polygamy. Members could organize an RP campaign complete with a website that exclaims that polygamy must be restored and in public this group can just say they want the church leadership to pray to HF about it. But in the meanwhile, agitate in the wards for it by holding discussions about it, a sort of missionary type discussion program. Why not? They would certainly have the right to do it. But how would you feel about such an organization that shows a two-sidedness about it: it must be restored/take it to heavenly father in prayer. This is the tactic of OW.

Maybe I should start the RP organizatioin. Trust me I will also not just be giving soundbites. And yes, I will also claim that I have a testimony of the gospel and still hold it and that I am an active member who just wants equal rights for those who will support polygamy in the church. In fact, kate and I can work together so that all members will have equal rights, even the polygamists who have been exed should have their membership restored and their rights protected to continue its practice.

Sometimes we need to use our sociological imagination and take a step outside our own shoes to see the world anew. Will you support me Rockpond? I need people on the boards taking up my cause. I only ask for the leaders to pray about it but really, it must be restored.

No church can function like the above situations. There would be chaos. And the critics know it. No church is a demcracy, nor can it ever be. And certainly Paul is a good example of this when he wrote his letters admonishing the local churches to be of one mind.

Did Pres. Monson say recently, in an interview perhaps, that the men were happy with the status quo, and there's no agitation for it?

[rockpond]

I suspected that the only way to resolve the paradox was to deny that the paradox really existed. Convenient, but not really satisfactory.

 

I don't see that you substantiated your claim that such a paradox existed.

 

 

As Pahoran mentioned, in this particular case concerning Kate Kelly's excommunication, the leaders are 100% right. In this decision, the will of God  has been manifest through His church and servants.

 

If we're talking specifically about Kelly's excommunication, I've said before:  I don't think she really left them with much of a choice.  As for whether it was the will of God is a separate matter and one that we won't be able to resolve here.

 

 

You can either accept or reject the decision as coming from God, but you cannot claim that Kelly's faith in Christ is consistent and in harmony with what Christ has manifest through His church. It's choose one or the other, not both.

 

Sorry, I don't subscribe to this either/or logic.  Our faith is not a perfect thing that precisely aligns with what Christ has manifest through His church.  Further, Christ is still working to manifest such through imperfect, mortal members and leaders.

 

 

Interesting that you would mention that Kelly "doesn't reject it all", thus inferring that there are some thing she does reject. Are the things she rejects considered part of the true church of Christ?  If so, what does that tell us about her faith in Christ?

 

Well, the one thing that we know she rejects is a male-only priesthood.  Is that part of the true church of Christ?  I don't know.  Does it mean that she lacks faith in Christ?  No.

[ksfisher]

 

Well, the one thing that we know she rejects is a male-only priesthood.  Is that part of the true church of Christ?  I don't know.  Does it mean that she lacks faith in Christ?  No.

 

What it appears that Kelly lacks is trust in the leaders whom Christ has chosen to lead his church.  Whether this can be equated with lack of faith in Christ I'm not 100% sure, but it's close.

[jwhitlock]

I don't see that you substantiated your claim that such a paradox existed

 

If we're talking specifically about Kelly's excommunication, I've said before:  I don't think she really left them with much of a choice.  As for whether it was the will of God is a separate matter and one that we won't be able to resolve here.

 

Sorry, I don't subscribe to this either/or logic.  Our faith is not a perfect thing that precisely aligns with what Christ has manifest through His church.  Further, Christ is still working to manifest such through imperfect, mortal members and leaders.

 

Well, the one thing that we know she rejects is a male-only priesthood.  Is that part of the true church of Christ?  I don't know.  Does it mean that she lacks faith in Christ?  No.

 

The paradox exists, without regard to whether you want to acknowledge it. Because it is a paradox, it actually is an either/or situation.

 

Note that I, nor anyone else, have made any claim for overall perfection on anyone's part. It's curious, but I find that emphasis on imperfection is typically used more to justify doubt of church leaders, than to doubt the words of apostates - who we are expected to accept at face value.

 

True faith in Christ requires submission to Christ. There's a difference between imperfection and mistakes, which we all make, and adopting a pick and choose attitude that demands that Christ (or His church) submit to what that person thinks is "right". The former, when coupled with humble submission to Christ, results in faith in Christ. The latter, which puts the demands of the individual above the will of Christ, is an indication that true faith in Christ is lacking.

 

So it is indeed a paradox. Kate Kelly's rejection of Christ as embodied in what she disagrees with in the church indicates that either she is right or the church is right. Both cannot be right. If the church is right, then Kelly has taken a path away from Christ. It's important to make that distinction in the case of a public figure such as Kelly (or Dehlin or Snuffer or anyone else) where they set themselves up in opposition to the church.

 

And yes, a male priesthood is the will of Christ at this point in time. That much should, at least, be clear to anyone accepting the truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Christ's church on the earth.

[rockpond]

What it appears that Kelly lacks is trust in the leaders whom Christ has chosen to lead his church.  Whether this can be equated with lack of faith in Christ I'm not 100% sure, but it's close.

 

I don't see it as equating.

[Buckeye]

What it appears that Kelly lacks is trust in the leaders whom Christ has chosen to lead his church.  Whether this can be equated with lack of faith in Christ I'm not 100% sure, but it's close.

 

Actually, it's closer to 0 than 100. 99% of the people on this planet who exercise faith in Christ do not trust the LDS church leaders as his representative.

[rockpond]

The paradox exists, without regard to whether you want to acknowledge it. Because it is a paradox, it actually is an either/or situation.

 

Note that I, nor anyone else, have made any claim for overall perfection on anyone's part. It's curious, but I find that emphasis on imperfection is typically used more to justify doubt of church leaders, than to doubt the words of apostates - who we are expected to accept at face value.

 

True faith in Christ requires submission to Christ. There's a difference between imperfection and mistakes, which we all make, and adopting a pick and choose attitude that demands that Christ (or His church) submit to what that person thinks is "right". The former, when coupled with humble submission to Christ, results in faith in Christ. The latter, which puts the demands of the individual above the will of Christ, is an indication that true faith in Christ is lacking.

 

So it is indeed a paradox. Kate Kelly's rejection of Christ as embodied in what she disagrees with in the church indicates that either she is right or the church is right. Both cannot be right. If the church is right, then Kelly has taken a path away from Christ. It's important to make that distinction in the case of a public figure such as Kelly (or Dehlin or Snuffer or anyone else) where they set themselves up in opposition to the church.

 

And yes, a male priesthood is the will of Christ at this point in time. That much should, at least, be clear to anyone accepting the truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Christ's church on the earth.

 

Your false paradox arises out of your mistaken conclusion that disagreeing with a church leader equates to rejecting Christ.

 

The men leading this church are amazing and faithful servants of Christ.  But they don't get everything right.  We have ample history of that.  So disagreeing with them on something does not mean one has rejected Christ or lacks faith.

Edited March 16, 2015 by rockpond

[JLHPROF]

Actually, it's closer to 0 than 100. 99% of the people on this planet who exercise faith in Christ do not trust the LDS church leaders as his representative.

 

Then I would argue that they do NOT truly exercise faith in Christ...

If we limit faith to simply praying and hoping then sure they do.  But not believing Christ's revealed word hardly shows faith in him.