Recent Excommunications

[Calm]

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.

I am pretty sure this is a security issue....allowing people to wear masks to primary parties increases not only the likelihood of kids thinking they can get away with goofing off in possibly dangerous ways, but also total strangers coming in and participating without the adults in supervision being aware of....or maybe it is just I have a high level of paranoia when it comes to kidnapping due to my boss' little girl getting snatched and abused for six weeks right when I was married and then a couple of kids getting taken from the local malls around the time of my first child's birth.

 

Since masks can be worn for dramatic productions, it doesn't seem like there is a total prohibition against it and my interpretation of it as a security issue is a likely one:

 

Activities that involve wearing masks, except in dramatic productions.

 

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/activities/13.6.12?lang=eng#136

[Buckeye]

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?

 

Silence means a definitive 'no'? I'm glad Spencer W. Kimball did not take this approach in lifting the racial priesthood ban:

 

 

 

In 1976, he [sWK] mentioned "his concern for giving the priesthood to all men, and said that he had been praying about it for fifteen years without an answer...but I am going to keep praying about it."

 

^{Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, working draft chapter 21, page 7; citing F. Burton Howard to author, June 15, 1995; F. Burton Howard, interview by author, July 30, 2002.}

 

^{http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban}

 

[rockpond]

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.

As I said, I'm not willing to pre-judge how they would have reacted had they been responded to. I find that to be extremely unfair. I'm not aware of the Brethren ever responding to them, are you?

[rockpond]

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.

Heaven forbid a group of Mormon women dress like Mormon women.

[rockpond]

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?

After having listened to Kelly (and despite your attempt to paint her outside the circle of "believing Latter-day Saints", I think the answer to your question is "yes".

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

"Obvious" being interpreted is, "I assume that such pushing must have been going on because I'm utterly suspicious of everything the Church does."

What is "obvious" to me is that all the dishonesty you see is merely projected.

[Russell C McGregor]

After having listened to Kelly (and despite your attempt to paint her outside the circle of "believing Latter-day Saints", I think the answer to your question is "yes".

Having seen you outright deny that Mister Dehlin rationalised equivocating on the meanings of key LDS terms in order to justify giving misleading (i.e. false) answers in Temple Recommend interviews, I'm not certain that your judgement on this question is altogether sound.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am pretty sure this is a security issue....allowing people to wear masks to primary parties increases not only the likelihood of kids thinking they can get away with goofing off in possibly dangerous ways, but also total strangers coming in and participating without the adults in supervision being aware of....or maybe it is just I have a high level of paranoia when it comes to kidnapping due to my boss' little girl getting snatched and abused for six weeks right when I was married and then a couple of kids getting taken from the local malls around the time of my first child's birth.

 

Since masks can be worn for dramatic productions, it doesn't seem like there is a total prohibition against it and my interpretation of it as a security issue is a likely one:

 

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/activities/13.6.12?lang=eng#136

I had always understood the prohibition of masks on Halloween to be a security issue. I think it makes a great deal of sense.

[Stargazer]

Silence means a definitive 'no'? I'm glad Spencer W. Kimball did not take this approach in lifting the racial priesthood ban:

 

No, Mr. Ohio, that's not what I meant.  I've asked the Lord for things that he declined to answer, which I took as a NO.  It didn't mean that I thought I had to stop asking.  Have the Brethren asked about ordaining women?  I don't know, but if they have, and the Lord declined to answer, then this means the Lord said NO. 

 

Do you now understand what I mean?

 

By the way, have I ever told you the story of the Planet Ohio?

[Stargazer]

As I said, I'm not willing to pre-judge how they would have reacted had they been responded to. I find that to be extremely unfair. I'm not aware of the Brethren ever responding to them, are you?

 

I find it completely legitimate to predict how people might respond under circumstances which have not yet occurred.  When you asked your wife to marry you, did you KNOW how she was going to respond?  Nope, you didn't!  But did you not predict to yourself how she was going to react?  Of course you did.  If you were certain she was going to say NO! then you would not have asked would you?

 

I claim the privilege of predicting how OW would react if Pres. Monson told them "Hey, I asked the Lord, and He said 'No freaking way!'".  Their own website contains verbiage which is highly suggestive of their reaction were this to occur: they would never accept a refusal, even were an angel to deliver it.

 

And I am completely open to being proven wrong on this point!  It wouldn't bother me if Pres. Monson said "The Lord says NO," and they then said, "Oh, that's all right, then," and promptly disband.  I am willing to bet real money that this wouldn't be their response, however.

[Stargazer]

I had always understood the prohibition of masks on Halloween to be a security issue. I think it makes a great deal of sense.

 

As did I.  However, I am sure that there are some LDS who have taken it as a doctrinal prohibition -- which it is not. 

[DBMormon]

"Obvious" being interpreted is, "I assume that such pushing must have been going on because I'm utterly suspicious of everything the Church does."

What is "obvious" to me is that all the dishonesty you see is merely projected.

seriously.  Are you aware of Malcolm Jeppson Clark's journal?  like john dehlin or not, you may want to take a listen to his interview with Jeppson's daughter where she reads his journal verbatim and he says he was told from higher ups to go after some of the september 6.  Add that with the real people disciplined recently who were told by their stake presidents that higher ups were pushing for councils.  It has least happened on 1 occasion and the evidence points to it having happened on several occasions - but please deflect and brush away.

Edited June 12, 2015 by DBMormon

[Kevin Christensen]

seriously.  Are you aware of Malcolm Jeppson Clark's journal?  like john dehlin or not, you may want to take a listen to his interview with Jeppson's daughter where she reads his journal verbatim and he says he was told from higher ups to go after some of the september 6.  Add that with the real people disciplined recently who were told by their stake presidents that higher ups were pushing for councils.  It has least happened on 1 occasion and the evidence points to it having happened on several occasions - but please deflect and brush away.

When someone behaves in ways that affects people far beyond the Ward's local boundaries, and becomes something much more than a mere local concern, is it really a disturbing issue when someone with General, rather than local authority, expresses concern? General practice, and general guidelines apply to normal conditions. When someone behaves in exceptional ways, isn't it reasonable to call for exceptional treatment?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[HappyJackWagon]

When someone behaves in ways that affects people far beyond the Ward's local boundaries, and becomes something much more than a mere local concern, is it really a disturbing issue when someone with General, rather than local authority, expresses concern? General practice, and general guidelines apply to normal conditions. When someone behaves in exceptional ways, isn't it reasonable to call for exceptional treatment?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

I don't have a problem with General Authorities get involved. I think it would be very strange for them not to be in high profile cases. What I object to is their insistence that they are not involved when they are. It is a lie. That's the problem. If they want to be involved and believe they should be, they should own it. Stop passing the buck to local leaders who have been told what to do. It's extremely unfair to local leaders and appears to be an attempt for the GA's to keep their hands clean in the matter. It's disengenuous.

[rockpond]

Having seen you outright deny that Mister Dehlin rationalised equivocating on the meanings of key LDS terms in order to justify giving misleading (i.e. false) answers in Temple Recommend interviews, I'm not certain that your judgement on this question is altogether sound.

Having seen you set yourself up as the final declarant of what constitutes valid LDS beliefs, I feel comfortable with you questioning my judgment... It indicates that I'm on a good path.

Edited June 12, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I find it completely legitimate to predict how people might respond under circumstances which have not yet occurred. When you asked your wife to marry you, did you KNOW how she was going to respond? Nope, you didn't! But did you not predict to yourself how she was going to react? Of course you did. If you were certain she was going to say NO! then you would not have asked would you?

I claim the privilege of predicting how OW would react if Pres. Monson told them "Hey, I asked the Lord, and He said 'No freaking way!'". Their own website contains verbiage which is highly suggestive of their reaction were this to occur: they would never accept a refusal, even were an angel to deliver it.

And I am completely open to being proven wrong on this point! It wouldn't bother me if Pres. Monson said "The Lord says NO," and they then said, "Oh, that's all right, then," and promptly disband. I am willing to bet real money that this wouldn't be their response, however.

As amazing as my marriage proposal was, I put prophetic revelation in a different category.

I don't know how they will react if they ever receive that response, but at a minimum, they will have to change their mission statement.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I claim the privilege of predicting how OW would react if Pres. Monson told them "Hey, I asked the Lord, and He said 'No freaking way!'".  Their own website contains verbiage which is highly suggestive of their reaction were this to occur: they would never accept a refusal, even were an angel to deliver it.

 

Your example is terrible. You are predicting/convicting an entire organization full of people based on what you think they would do. Do you not see a problem with that?

[Brian 2.0]

I find it completely legitimate to predict how people might respond under circumstances which have not yet occurred.  When you asked your wife to marry you, did you KNOW how she was going to respond?  Nope, you didn't!  But did you not predict to yourself how she was going to react?  Of course you did.  If you were certain she was going to say NO! then you would not have asked would you?

 

I claim the privilege of predicting how OW would react if Pres. Monson told them "Hey, I asked the Lord, and He said 'No freaking way!'".  Their own website contains verbiage which is highly suggestive of their reaction were this to occur: they would never accept a refusal, even were an angel to deliver it.

 

And I am completely open to being proven wrong on this point!  It wouldn't bother me if Pres. Monson said "The Lord says NO," and they then said, "Oh, that's all right, then," and promptly disband.  I am willing to bet real money that this wouldn't be their response, however.

 

If this hypothetical happened, it wouldn't matter what OW did, they could disappear.  The statement itself would be enough to spawn buckets of negative media and PR for the church.  If Pres. Monson gave some definitive statement that He asked God and God said he doesn't want women to have the priesthood, that would get picked up by loads of media outlets, it would be used over and over for years to come in ex-mormon, anti-mormon, general public comments.  The church would look more "old fashioned" than it already does now.

[Stargazer]

As amazing as my marriage proposal was, I put prophetic revelation in a different category.

I don't know how they will react if they ever receive that response, but at a minimum, they will have to change their mission statement.

 

I am happy that your marriage proposal was amazing!  Mine went strangely.  The object of my proposal said "Wow!" and started talking about how surprised she was and so on, until I finally had to cue her response: "And your answer is ....?" 

 

But sir, you were indicating how politically incorrect and impolite it is to predict what they would have said "IF".  I was only trying to bring you back to earth on the whole "How dare you!" thing.  It's perfectly normal to try to get into the heads of our fellow beings and attempt to divine how they will respond to various circumstances. 

[Stargazer]

Your example is terrible. You are predicting/convicting an entire organization full of people based on what you think they would do. Do you not see a problem with that?

 

No, and I don't see any reason for you to hyperventilate about it, either.  I take issue with your "convicting" word, too.  What do you think I'm trying to "convict" them of?  Did you get confused and now inexplicably believe that I am prosecutor, and OW has to answer charges in my jurisdiction or something?  There is no ham sandwich for the grand jury to indict, at this time, at least.

 

Obviously I cannot make an accurate prediction about how every single member of OW would react if X were to happen.  I can, however, based on the principles which are elucidated on their website, get a general idea about what they as an organization might do if X were to happen.  When X is Pres. Monson saying "I asked the Lord and He said 'No'".  My prediction is that they wouldn't accept it graciously.  You are permitted to differ on this, if you wish, I won't accuse you of any crime because of it.

 

Even if you dispute that I have a right to predict how I think they would react to the hypothetical situation in question, no doubt you have formed an opinion on it, too.  If you choose to claim that you have not formed an opinion on that, fine, I won't think less of you. 

[Stargazer]

If this hypothetical happened, it wouldn't matter what OW did, they could disappear.  The statement itself would be enough to spawn buckets of negative media and PR for the church.  If Pres. Monson gave some definitive statement that He asked God and God said he doesn't want women to have the priesthood, that would get picked up by loads of media outlets, it would be used over and over for years to come in ex-mormon, anti-mormon, general public comments.  The church would look more "old fashioned" than it already does now.

 

I agree totally with you on this.  That's why I don't expect Pres. Monson to say blip about it. 

[rockpond]

I am happy that your marriage proposal was amazing! Mine went strangely. The object of my proposal said "Wow!" and started talking about how surprised she was and so on, until I finally had to cue her response: "And your answer is ....?"

But sir, you were indicating how politically incorrect and impolite it is to predict what they would have said "IF". I was only trying to bring you back to earth on the whole "How dare you!" thing. It's perfectly normal to try to get into the heads of our fellow beings and attempt to divine how they will respond to various circumstances.

I actually didn't say "how dare you" or that it was politically incorrect. They put forward a mission statement and you're claiming that they are insincere in that mission. But I get your point, I suppose it's fair to predict how the organization would respond.

I don't like it when it gets to the individual level of questioning someone's faithfulness based on how you think they'll react to revelation. For example, I've had family members tell me that they would leave the church if the prophet announced that revelation had been received accepting gay marriage. But even with them telling me that, I still think that hearts can change when the spirit speaks.

[Stargazer]

I actually didn't say "how dare you" or that it was politically incorrect. They put forward a mission statement and you're claiming that they are insincere in that mission. But I get your point, I suppose it's fair to predict how the organization would respond.

I don't like it when it gets to the individual level of questioning someone's faithfulness based on how you think they'll react to revelation. For example, I've had family members tell me that they would leave the church if the prophet announced that revelation had been received accepting gay marriage. But even with them telling me that, I still think that hearts can change when the spirit speaks.

 

I know you didn't actually use the "dare" expression.  But you and HappyJack were questioning of the propriety of my using my right to make a prediction based on available evidence as to how they might jump in the given circumstance.  Not to channel Bobby Brown or anything, but it's my prerogative to use my brain to think with.

 

As to your second paragraph, I'm not questioning faithfulness based on how I think they'll react; that's senseless.  I question their faithfulness by the very fact of their attempting to force church policy into the direction they desire: "Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings."  My prediction concerning their probable reaction to a 'No" from Pres. Monson is based on these words from their own hands.  It appears that they have declared in advance that they will not accept any word from the leadership of the church that does not accede to their demand.

 

On my mission, my companion and I encountered a man who said he would be willing to join our church if our church were to publicly stand up for the immediate release from prison of Rudolf Hess, Hitler's second in command who, in 1941, flew alone to Scotland to attempt to negotiate a peace treaty between Germany and the Allies.  Our "investigator" believed that Hess did not deserve a life prison sentence, since his actions indicated that he was a man of peace.  Needless to say, we could not assure him of the Church's backing, so we could not teach him. 

 

You know, when it comes to this man-woman equality thing, I guess I should throw my self into the effort.  I want the right to bear children from my own body.  I believe it is unconscionable for God to have unreasonably withheld this blessing and this right from me and other men.  I am going to start an organization that seeks to force the Church to finance scientific research which will make it possible for me, as a man, to bear children -- and, not to be inequitous -- also finance scientific research which will make it possible for women to not only bear, but beget children.  In short, I demand that human beings become hermaphrodites. 

 

Perhaps God hasn't directed the Church to ordain women because God doesn't want women ordained.  I think I should let Him do it His way.

[rockpond]

I know you didn't actually use the "dare" expression. But you and HappyJack were questioning of the propriety of my using my right to make a prediction based on available evidence as to how they might jump in the given circumstance. Not to channel Bobby Brown or anything, but it's my prerogative to use my brain to think with.

As to your second paragraph, I'm not questioning faithfulness based on how I think they'll react; that's senseless. I question their faithfulness by the very fact of their attempting to force church policy into the direction they desire: "Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings." My prediction concerning their probable reaction to a 'No" from Pres. Monson is based on these words from their own hands. It appears that they have declared in advance that they will not accept any word from the leadership of the church that does not accede to their demand.

On my mission, my companion and I encountered a man who said he would be willing to join our church if our church were to publicly stand up for the immediate release from prison of Rudolf Hess, Hitler's second in command who, in 1941, flew alone to Scotland to attempt to negotiate a peace treaty between Germany and the Allies. Our "investigator" believed that Hess did not deserve a life prison sentence, since his actions indicated that he was a man of peace. Needless to say, we could not assure him of the Church's backing, so we could not teach him.

You know, when it comes to this man-woman equality thing, I guess I should throw my self into the effort. I want the right to bear children from my own body. I believe it is unconscionable for God to have unreasonably withheld this blessing and this right from me and other men. I am going to start an organization that seeks to force the Church to finance scientific research which will make it possible for me, as a man, to bear children -- and, not to be inequitous -- also finance scientific research which will make it possible for women to not only bear, but beget children. In short, I demand that human beings become hermaphrodites.

Perhaps God hasn't directed the Church to ordain women because God doesn't want women ordained. I think I should let Him do it His way.

Yes, it's your prerogative to make such a prediction. And it's mine to say that I think you're being harsh and judgmental in so doing. When it comes to things of the Spirit - hearts can be changed.

While I am not an OW supporter, I think they've been greatly maligned. We're talking about women who asked to be let into a meeting. Oh horror. They asked for a little consideration from a church that took over 30 YEARS to follow its own prophet's council about letting women pray. Perhaps they realized that the men leading the Church, for as great as they are, don't always follow God's will unflinchingly. Sometimes we must stand up and be counted. Sometimes sustaining our leaders means doing more than just waiting for their counsel.

[Tacenda]

Yes, it's your prerogative to make such a prediction. And it's mine to say that I think you're being harsh and judgmental in so doing. When it comes to things of the Spirit - hearts can be changed.

While I am not an OW supporter, I think they've been greatly maligned. We're talking about women who asked to be let into a meeting. Oh horror. They asked for a little consideration from a church that took over 30 YEARS to follow its own prophet's council about letting women pray. Perhaps they realized that the men leading the Church, for as great as they are, don't always follow God's will unflinchingly. Sometimes we must stand up and be counted. Sometimes sustaining our leaders means doing more than just waiting for their counsel.

Was listening to a podcast recently, where someone said that in the Preach My Gospel book, there is no mention of women in there. I don't know if that means quotes only or scriptures or stories or all three. It's time for young girls, young women, and older women to hear more of these in Sacrament meetings, SS, Primary, RS and Young Women lessons etc. Edited June 13, 2015 by Tacenda