Recent Excommunications

[JLHPROF]

From the Ordain Women mission statement (on their website, bold added):

 

Based on the principle of thoughtful, faith-affirming strategic action, Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. 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. We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer.

 

The flaw is their assumption that because women are not being ordained that this hasn't been done.  The leaders could issue a "Thus Saith The Lord, Priesthood is only to be given to my sons" revelation and they would reject it because their minds are already made up, as evidenced in the portion I bolded red.

They are not operating under James 1:5 but under Jacob 4:10.  Their minds are made up.

[HappyJackWagon]

The flaw is their assumption that because women are not being ordained that this hasn't been done.  The leaders could issue a "Thus Saith The Lord, Priesthood is only to be given to my sons" revelation and they would reject it because their minds are already made up, as evidenced in the portion I bolded red.

They are not operating under James 1:5 but under Jacob 4:10.  Their minds are made up.

They're assuming the question about female ordination hasn't been asked because the Q15 have never stated otherwise. Why would we assume they've asked a question? The simple solution would be to 1- ask the question or 2- state that the question had been asked and answered. I don't believe either of those things were said, leaving the request to "ASK" an open and valid request.

[JLHPROF]

They're assuming the question about female ordination hasn't been asked because the Q15 have never stated otherwise. Why would we assume they've asked a question? The simple solution would be to 1- ask the question or 2- state that the question had been asked and answered. I don't believe either of those things were said, leaving the request to "ASK" an open and valid request.

 

And I would argue that the question HAS been answered by revelation - every single revelation that specifies the calling of men to offices and the lack of any revelation calling a woman to an ecclesiastical office.  God called many men to many offices.  Christ could have called and ordained a female apostle in the NT 12 or the BOM 12.  He didn't.  None of the revelations of the restoration calling people as elders, seventies, high priests, apostles, etc name a woman.  There has never been a revelation on the record since the beginning of the world that called a woman to the ecclesiastical priesthood.

 

There are the revelations answering this issue.

It's the same argument for Baptism - there is no revelation forbidding baptism by sprinkling.  But every revelation on baptism, even the meaning of the word itself, points to immersion only.

Edited June 10, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

And I would argue that the question HAS been answered by revelation - every single revelation that specifies the calling of men to offices and the lack of any revelation calling a woman to an ecclesiastical office.  God called many men to many offices.  Christ could have called and ordained a female apostle in the NT 12 or the BOM 12.  He didn't.  None of the revelations of the restoration calling people as elders, seventies, high priests, apostles, etc name a woman.  There has never been a revelation on the record since the beginning of the world that called a woman to the ecclesiastical priesthood.

 

There are the revelations answering this issue.

It's the same argument for Baptism - there is no revelation forbidding baptism by sprinkling.  But every revelation on baptism, even the meaning of the word itself, points to immersion only.

 

That's an awfully large assumption. 

[HappyJackWagon]

And I would argue that the question HAS been answered by revelation - every single revelation that specifies the calling of men to offices and the lack of any revelation calling a woman to an ecclesiastical office.  God called many men to many offices.  Christ could have called and ordained a female apostle in the NT 12 or the BOM 12.  He didn't.  None of the revelations of the restoration calling people as elders, seventies, high priests, apostles, etc name a woman.  There has never been a revelation on the record since the beginning of the world that called a woman to the ecclesiastical priesthood.

 

There are the revelations answering this issue.

It's the same argument for Baptism - there is no revelation forbidding baptism by sprinkling.  But every revelation on baptism, even the meaning of the word itself, points to immersion only.

The scriptures didn't distinctly forbid black men from holding the priesthood. It may have been assumed because of the cultural norm of the time and the historical norms that affected that time. With your logic we would have never asked if black men should have the priesthood because it was implied in every other scripture that they weren't because if God wanted them to have it He would have specifically said so.

 

Just because women have been ignored in historical writings and culture doesn't mean that translates into God's will so I'm unwilling to assume that is God's will. We have a prophet. His purpose is to prophesy. So why not ask the question and get a difinitive answer?

[rockpond]

The flaw is their assumption that because women are not being ordained that this hasn't been done.  The leaders could issue a "Thus Saith The Lord, Priesthood is only to be given to my sons" revelation and they would reject it because their minds are already made up, as evidenced in the portion I bolded red.

They are not operating under James 1:5 but under Jacob 4:10.  Their minds are made up.

 

I agree with the responses from HJW so I don't feel the need to repeat his points.  I'll just say that I find it unfair to presume what the OW supporters would do if such a revelation was received/announced.

[Jeanne]

I don't even know if this will explain what I see in this thread.  I only know that I need to say this and that perhaps you may sway me, I need to know how and why you could.  If covenants and promises are made through the Priesthood for God..and if this is done by  Temple endowments or blessings bestowed by hand, a piece of paper from a priesthood holder is not going to cut it.  After all of these blessings and covenants made, I believe whatever happens would be between God and the individual....people on this earth and in this church are not authorized to speak nor condemn in the name of God..we are His children..not yours.

[ksfisher]

I don't even know if this will explain what I see in this thread.  I only know that I need to say this and that perhaps you may sway me, I need to know how and why you could.  If covenants and promises are made through the Priesthood for God..and if this is done by  Temple endowments or blessings bestowed by hand, a piece of paper from a priesthood holder is not going to cut it.  After all of these blessings and covenants made, I believe whatever happens would be between God and the individual....people on this earth and in this church are not authorized to speak nor condemn in the name of God..we are His children..not yours.

 

I'm not sure I understand your logic here.  If you say that a priesthood holder does not have the power to revoke a covenant or ordinance, the how could a priesthood holder administer the ordinance in the first place?  The priesthood holder is, after all, acting in the place of God, which you say no one on earth can do.

 

How then is the sacrament administered?  Priesthood holders are acting, under the direction of the bishop who holds the proper priesthood keys, in the name of Christ when they bless the sacrament.  If a bishop can authorize this ordinance to be performed does he not then have the authority to withhold it from those who are not worthy?

 

The same for temple ordinances.  If an authorized priesthood holder has the authority to perform the ordinance then does not an authorized priesthood holder also have authority to revoke that blessing?  That seems to be what the scriptures are teaching.

 

19 And I will ^agive unto thee the ^bkeys of the ^ckingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt ^dbind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16:19

 

2 Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:

D&C 81:2

 

2 The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth.

D&C 65:2

[Calm]

From the Ordain Women mission statement (on their website, bold added):

 We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer.

Do you not think there is a problem though if only one particular answer will suffice?  

 

Asking leaders to pray with set conditions attached to what that answer must be does seem to me to be prone to insisting the Church leadership accept as doctrine one's own belief.

 

The ordination of women would put us on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/project/my-name-is-kate/

[JLHPROF]

I'm not sure I understand your logic here.  If you say that a priesthood holder does not have the power to revoke a covenant or ordinance, the how could a priesthood holder administer the ordinance in the first place?  The priesthood holder is, after all, acting in the place of God, which you say no one on earth can do.

 

How then is the sacrament administered?  Priesthood holders are acting, under the direction of the bishop who holds the proper priesthood keys, in the name of Christ when they bless the sacrament.  If a bishop can authorize this ordinance to be performed does he not then have the authority to withhold it from those who are not worthy?

 

The same for temple ordinances.  If an authorized priesthood holder has the authority to perform the ordinance then does not an authorized priesthood holder also have authority to revoke that blessing?  That seems to be what the scriptures are teaching.

 

19 And I will ^agive unto thee the ^bkeys of the ^ckingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt ^dbind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16:19

 

2 Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:

D&C 81:2

 

2 The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth.

D&C 65:2

 

I already explained my views on that here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65457-recent-excommunications/page-4#entry1209502198

 

No, of course the priesthood can loose as well as bind.

But, for example, when I enter the waters of baptism I covenant to take upon me the name of Christ.  This ordinance/covenant is created through the action of the priesthood and by my acknowledgement (amen) of agreement to the terms.

 

If I abide by those terms the priesthood has no right to declare the covenant invalid.  If the priesthood observes that I have not lived by those terms they have the right to declare the covenant invalid and withhold any blessings they give connected with that covenant.

 

The same for the marriage covenant.  When I was put under covenant of marriage I committed to do certain things and the covenant was sealed by the priesthood.  If I continue to do those things I covenanted the priesthood has no right to cancel that particular covenant.  If they can show that covenant has been broken they have every right to declare the covenant void (as "judges in Israel") and withhold any blessings that are under their control and authority.

 

The same applies to all covenants.  It comes down to who chooses to break the covenant.  The priesthood cannot break a covenant on my behalf (punitive) but they can declare an already broken covenant to be loosed/invalid (judgement).

 

I think we misinterpret the authority of the priesthood in declaring a covenant void.

[ksfisher]

 

 

I think we misinterpret the authority of the priesthood in declaring a covenant void.

 

How so?  If I say, sin and break my baptismal covenants, the covenant is still in place, but I have placed myself under condemnation by breaking the covenant. 

 

If, on the other hand, my baptismal covenant is voided by an authorized priesthood leader (because of said sin) then I am no longer under condemnation for breaking the covenant.  I am, however, still under condemnation for the sin.

 

This process then becomes an act of mercy upon those who have chosen to distance themselves from the laws and ordinances of the gospel.  While they are still answerable for the sins that they have committed they are no longer under condemnation for the breaking of covenants.

 

This entire process of church discipline is administered by those who hold priesthood keys and are authorized to act in the name of God in these matters.

 

 

edited to add: after rereading your post I think we're saying the same thing, I think.

Edited June 10, 2015 by ksfisher

[rockpond]

Do you not think there is a problem though if only one particular answer will suffice?  

 

Asking leaders to pray with set conditions attached to what that answer must be does seem to me to be prone to insisting the Church leadership accept as doctrine one's own belief.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/project/my-name-is-kate/

 

Yes, Kelly believes that for equality to exist, women must also have the opportunity to be ordained to the priesthood.  But given her professed belief in prophetic revelation, I am not willing to pre-judge her reaction to an actual response from the prophet (with a revelatory yay or nay).

[JLHPROF]

Yes, Kelly believes that for equality to exist, women must also have the opportunity to be ordained to the priesthood.  But given her professed belief in prophetic revelation, I am not willing to pre-judge her reaction to an actual response from the prophet (with a revelatory yay or nay).

 

Prejudging Kate Kelly aside, how do you think ANY of us would respond if a revelation was received/announced that ran completely contrary to our deeply held feelings and beliefs?

 

I don't think it's a stretch to guess how OW or KK would respond, because any of our responses (myself included) would probably be similar.

If a revelation was announced stating that women were forbidden by the Lord from holding ecclesiastical priesthood there would be a lot of rejection by many people.  That may be speculation, but it's a common sense one.

[HappyJackWagon]

Prejudging Kate Kelly aside, how do you think ANY of us would respond if a revelation was received/announced that ran completely contrary to our deeply held feelings and beliefs?

 

I don't think it's a stretch to guess how OW or KK would respond, because any of our responses (myself included) would probably be similar.

If a revelation was announced stating that women were forbidden by the Lord from holding ecclesiastical priesthood there would be a lot of rejection by many people.  That may be speculation, but it's a common sense one.

Sure we would all have strong "feelings" but that doesn't necessarily equate to what our "actions" would be. So I'd be comfortable stipulating to the fact that KK would be unhappy/upset with the answer, but that in no way informs me as to what she will do about it. Besides, a "no" answer could be simply a "not yet".

 

That's the irony of having a church with continuing revelation, there is NO last word. Things could always change in the future. Just ask BY about how some of his teachings have withstood the test of time and continuing revelation.

[rockpond]

Prejudging Kate Kelly aside, how do you think ANY of us would respond if a revelation was received/announced that ran completely contrary to our deeply held feelings and beliefs?

 

I don't think it's a stretch to guess how OW or KK would respond, because any of our responses (myself included) would probably be similar.

If a revelation was announced stating that women were forbidden by the Lord from holding ecclesiastical priesthood there would be a lot of rejection by many people.  That may be speculation, but it's a common sense one.

 

I think it's impossible to say how each of us would react to a revelation given the power of the Spirit to testify to each of us and change hearts.

[Calm]

Yes, Kelly believes that for equality to exist, women must also have the opportunity to be ordained to the priesthood.  But given her professed belief in prophetic revelation, I am not willing to pre-judge her reaction to an actual response from the prophet (with a revelatory yay or nay).

Yes, it is certainly possible that she might have a change of heart...still is.  But her current stated position is one that promotes a specific doctrine without exception.  

 

Should we not make a judgment based on her current writings of what her current position is because it might change in the future?

[rockpond]

Yes, it is certainly possible that she might have a change of heart...still is.  But her current stated position is one that promotes a specific doctrine without exception.  

 

Should we not make a judgment based on her current writings of what her current position is because it might change in the future?

 

The statement that prompted my response was that she was trying to force a doctrinal change on the church.

 

I see her current position as believing that without women's ordination, equality doesn't and cannot exist in the church (from her statement you quoted).  But, I believe she recognizes that the change has to come through revelation... thus the mission statement of the organization she founded.

[CV75]

 I was interested to see the board consensus, especially among those posters who actually follow these people on blogs and podcasts etc and understand their positions.

I don't follow anyone on blogs and podasts, so my opinion is based on my own understanding of the disciplinary council principles and practice, my level of familiarity and experience with the Church, and the comments made on this discussion board--which, unfortunately for these three indviduals, include links to their cheesy websites! Yeech!

[Russell C McGregor]

The statement that prompted my response was that she was trying to force a doctrinal change on the church.

 

I see her current position as believing that without women's ordination, equality doesn't and cannot exist in the church (from her statement you quoted).  But, I believe she recognizes that the change has to come through revelation... thus the mission statement of the organization she founded.

The trouble is that it comes down to a question: when Kelly, Dehlin and their ilk use Mormon vocabulary, do they use it in a genuinely Mormon sense?

Mister Dehlin has already published a guide on how to equivocate Mormon terminology, replacing the understood meanings with undisclosed private meanings in order to deceive others.

(And when I pointed this out, I was accused of doing just what Mr Dehlin was doing, a very palpable falsehood. But that's not important right now.)

So whenever I see this crowd using words like "revelation," I have to wonder: does it mean the same thing to them as it does to believing Latter-day Saints, i.e. a process by which God, an actual and objectively real divine being whose existence is independent of the mind of the believer, chooses to communicate His will to His servants?

Or do they mean something else, such as a process by which the leaders of the Church are brought to acquiesce to the superior wisdom of the wannabe ark-steadiers? Which process may include various techniques of persuasion and manipulation of public opinion?

Ms Kelly has chosen to associate herself with Mr Dehlin, so she cannot complain that we wonder how much of his methodology she might have adopted.

[Stargazer]

From the Ordain Women mission statement (on their website, bold added):

 

Based on the principle of thoughtful, faith-affirming strategic action, Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. 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. We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer.

 

If that's all they wanted, then they would have quit when they got the attention that they sought.  Sis. Kelly would have proclaimed that she had reached her goal of getting the Brethren to consider it, and she'd never have been excommunicated.  But she didn't stop, and instead she intensified her activities and those of her organization.  That sentence which you've bolded is one of the disingenuous statements I have ever seen in connection with this whole matter.  What do you suppose, that if Pres. Monson had called them up and said "We asked, and the Lord denied your petition," that they would have just said, "Oh, that's all right, then."  Fat freaking chance.

[why me]

So whenever I see this crowd using words like "revelation," I have to wonder: does it mean the same thing to them as it does to believing Latter-day Saints, i.e. a process by which God, an actual and objectively real divine being whose existence is independent of the mind of the believer, chooses to communicate His will to His servants?

Or do they mean something else, such as a process by which the leaders of the Church are brought to acquiesce to the superior wisdom of the wannabe ark-steadiers? Which process may include various techniques of persuasion and manipulation of public opinion?

Ms Kelly has chosen to associate herself with Mr Dehlin, so she cannot complain that we wonder how much of his methodology she might have adopted.

Not just the use of wording. When kate was having photo ops with her organization's 'board of directors' they were dressed like a sterotypical mormon woman, attempting to show their mormonness. It was quite amazing just how OW was attempting to crack into the average lds woman mindset by attempting to dress the part. But I haven't seen mormon women dressed like that in quite a while, of course, sister missionaries do, perhaps. It was quite a media savvy campaign with photo ops of their supporters having photos of scripture reading etc. All designed to show that they are all just typical mormons who wish for change.

 

Perhaps I could have given them all more respect if they would drop the mormon sterotypes.

[Stargazer]

No, I think I understand exactly what you're saying. One of the many problems with your approach is it sets you or others up as the judge of when another person's understanding is orthodox enough. Like I said before, we ALL share thoughts and opinions, dare I say we all TEACH things that may be inconsistent in some way with the official doctrines or statements of church leaders. I'll also point out that people can err on the side of being too liberal (this is the group I think you're aiming your judgement towards) but it can just as easily err on the side of fundamentalism/literalism.

 

When you hear someone teach in quorum or a lesson that people must partake of the sacrament with their right hand, it's a fundamentalist overreach and false doctrine.

 

When you hear someone teach that we KNOW Christ was born on April 6th it is a fundamentalist/literalist overreach.

 

When you hear someone teach, as was often taught in the past, that blacks were less valiant in the premortal life, it is a false doctrine.

 

Fortunately we can repent of false understandings and teachings as we come to greater enlightenment but not because someone else tells us we must.

 

 

These are silly, simple examples but illustrate that both sides can err in understanding. This is inevitable. It's part of living within a community. We learn to live with and understand different types of peoples with different experiences and beliefs. If someone is uncomfortable with a little diversity in thought they might want to question whether or not THEY are in the right place.

 

I definitely appreciate the silliness of your simple examples, but a belief that blacks were less valiant, the sacrament must be taken with the right hand, and so on, are false doctrines that, contra your statement which I've bolded above, MUST be taught to us by those having authority, whereupon you may repent.  I fully believe that you may arrive at the truth that these things were false doctrine all by yourself, wherein you don't believe them, but until the doctrine has been laid out authoritatively (and not by way of opinion), you don't really know, do you?  Well, in all those years I certainly thought that the valiancy thing was full of baloney, and when I saw man without a right hand make one of the signs in the temple with his left hand, it became clear that right-hand-sacrament-taking was clearly balderdash -- on that score, I still haven't seen or heard an authoritative statement, but nobody's found anything authoritative that says you must do so, either.

 

I think the prohibition against masks on Halloween (or any other time, for that matter) is poppycock, yet the Church still issues it -- or at least my ward does.  There's been enough GA's who've said it isn't good to gamble, but I've not found any scripture that says it's actually a sin. 

[Stargazer]

Some of us here seem to think that the Lord's silence on the subject of Ordain Women leaves some kind of rational doubt as to whether or not He will eventually reveal that it must be done.  And thus we can still hope for it.

 

I have asked much of the Lord in my life, and I have learned definitively that the Lord's silence on the issue means exactly and only one thing: NO.

 

Where's my Mercedes Benz?

[Brian 2.0]

When kate was having photo ops with her organization's 'board of directors' they were dressed like a sterotypical mormon woman, attempting to show their mormonness. It was quite amazing just how OW was attempting to crack into the average lds woman mindset by attempting to dress the part. 

 

Are you saying that those women don't actually dress like that and got clothes they normally don't wear to do the photo shot?

[DBMormon]

I voted "overstepped".  Not because of the decision which I allow a local leader to make without my butting in and affirming or criticizing the decision.  Rather I am very frustrated by the obvious pushing these local leaders were getting from higher up leaders when that both violates the policy and runs counter to what general leadership and PR say.  It seems borderline dishonest from my perception.

Edited June 11, 2015 by DBMormon