mormonnewb Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I have a former friend and co-worker who, as a direct result of Kate Kelly, has resigned from the Church and taken her family with her. From the LDS paradigm, that's not "harmless."Kate Kelly is now publishing news articles in which she openly encouraged Latter-day Saints to abandon their faith. That's not "harmless." I think we will both agree that I have a MUCH higher regard for Kate Kelly than you do. Yet, even I don't think that she is THAT powerful. Do you? Do you think that someone who was satisfied with their role in the Church and after THOUSANDS of hours of instructions from actual apostles of God, would be so swayed by Kate's rhetorical that she would just up and leave the "one true Church"? Kate is a more powerful force than the Lord's own anointed? (If so, that is the ULTIMATE argument for ordaining women ... one woman is greater than 15 men in terms of persuasion). Or is it possible that she was already dissatisfied? That her testimony in the Brethren had already been weakened? If that is the case, then Kate Kelly is the LEAST of the Church's problems because there are literally thousands of seductive forces out there (and many of them are even more seductive than OW). In the Trib op-ed, Kate was specifically addressing the case of a woman who had approached her asking if she should stay in the Church. Obviously, this woman was not a "happy camper." Over the last year, I've had the pleasure of meeting some of the most intelligent and earnest women in the Church and not one of them has ever told me that she was totally happy with the Church until Kate opened their eyes to gender equality in the Church. Some of them credit Kate with showing them that they didn't have to just "sit back and take it." And believe it or not, others credit OW with keeping them in the Church (giving them something to stay and fight for). The Church has 99 problems, but Kate Kelly isn't one.
JAHS Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I think we will both agree that I have a MUCH higher regard for Kate Kelly than you do. Yet, even I don't think that she is THAT powerful. Do you? Do you think that someone who was satisfied with their role in the Church and after THOUSANDS of hours of instructions from actual apostles of God, would be so swayed by Kate's rhetorical that she would just up and leave the "one true Church"? Kate is a more powerful force than the Lord's own anointed? (If so, that is the ULTIMATE argument for ordaining women ... one woman is greater than 15 men in terms of persuasion). Or is it possible that she was already dissatisfied? That her testimony in the Brethren had already been weakened? If that is the case, then Kate Kelly is the LEAST of the Church's problems because there are literally thousands of seductive forces out there (and many of them are even more seductive than OW). In the Trib op-ed, Kate was specifically addressing the case of a woman who had approached her asking if she should stay in the Church. Obviously, this woman was not a "happy camper." Over the last year, I've had the pleasure of meeting some of the most intelligent and earnest women in the Church and not one of them has ever told me that she was totally happy with the Church until Kate opened their eyes to gender equality in the Church. Some of them credit Kate with showing them that they didn't have to just "sit back and take it." And believe it or not, others credit OW with keeping them in the Church (giving them something to stay and fight for). The Church has 99 problems, but Kate Kelly isn't one."until Kate opened their eyes to gender equality in the Church." Your definition of gender equality is not the same as God's definition. "And believe it or not, others credit OW with keeping them in the Church (giving them something to stay and fight for)." That's just what we need; more women fighting against the leaders of the church, forgetting the fact that all 15 of them are prophets of God and are unifed in their understanding of thr roles for men and women. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 "Kate Kelly" "mormon" brings up over 40,000 hits on google. "Denver Snuffer" "mormon" almost 10,000, "Rock Waterman" "mormon" under 7,000 hits. This must be because Kelly is a woman, right? Why else would google be getting more hits for her than the other two?Sexism! Clearly, Google's promulgators have it in for her!
Kenngo1969 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 My wife has quoted that scripture. And you're an OK guy yourself.Thank you.
bluebell Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 But general public news exposure is not the metric that determines mentions on this Board. If that was the case, we would NEVER talk about JS or BY because they haven't been featured on TMZ in ... I don't know ... ever. Our metric is simply interest to the Board. To the extent that we are interested in a topic, we talk about it. So why is Kate Kelly of such interest to the rest of you?And don't get me wrong. I never get tired of talking about Kate. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I love me some Kate Kelly! I count it as one of my greatest honors that she asked me to serve on the board of OW. And I feel blessed to have been able to work personally with (who am I kidding? FOR) her. For me, it was the first time that I've serve under someone whom I counted as one of my heroes (my ego usually only has room for self-admiration).But I realize that most of you don't see her the same way that I do. Some of you see her as some petulant child -- whining that she isn't getting her way. Okay, fair enough. But why is such a "whiny brat" the subject of HUNDREDS of pages on a message board frequented by people with doctorates and advanced degrees? My wife and I see petulant children all of the time in sacrament meeting and we never give it a single mention at home. For two highly-educated people (okay, one highly-educated person and me) to spend our time pointing out of the foibles of an immature child would be absurd and not reflect highly on OUR character. After all, an ill-mannered child at church might be a slight distraction, but at the end of the day, she is harmless.However, what is it about Ms. Kelly that makes her so dangerous to so many of you? Is it that she is having influence with other woman -- causing them to, as Dr. King would say, "Straighten up their backs"? If so, do you give her credit for such incredible powers of persuasion and sophistry? After all, she must be incredibly gifted to be able to overpower the messages of God's own handpicked apostles and to influence women who were otherwise perfectly happy with their roles in the Church before Ms. Kelly came along. Or is it that she is simply touching a nerve that was already raw and tender? And with or without her, the Church still needs to find a "balm of Gilead."So perhaps, that might be a more fruitful topic of conversation. What we can do to make ALL women feel valued in the Church. Just a thought ....General news mentions absolutely govern smac's Kate Kelly threads on this board. Have you ever seen him start a thread on her that was not predicated upon a mention of her in the news and which didn't include a link to the article? 3
Damien the Leper Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Well I guess you need to take it up with Joseph Smith when you meet him. He is the one reported to have said it. And I have personally witnessed it on more than one occassion. I do believe that you cannot be neutral about the church if you leave it. You might not care enough to act against it, but you have, by your action of leaving, chosen the way of the oppostion. Either this is the Lord's church, or it's not. There is no middle ground.Unmitigated absolutist rot.
mormonnewb Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) General news mentions absolutely govern smac's Kate Kelly threads on this board.Have you ever seen him start a thread on her that was not predicated upon a mention of her in the news and which didn't include a link to the article? Let's get past smac97gate. He has explained his interest in current news stories and threats to the Church (of which he considers Kate Kelly to be one). I accept his answer. Furthermore, in hindsight, I realize that it was not my place to question his motives in the first place. His personal motivations for starting however many threads about Ms. Kelly are just that -- personal. I would apologize for overstepping my bounds, but we've recently been instructed that apologies are not Biblical, so I'll just leave it as "there may have been times when mormonnewb has made mistakes or has not acted in keeping with proper standards of decorum." Now, addressing the actual ideas expressed in the OP. What advice should Kate Kelly give to a woman who is considering leaving the Church? Should the answer always be to stay? Edited July 19, 2015 by mormonnewb
Raingirl Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 And don't get me wrong. I never get tired of talking about Kate. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I love me some Kate Kelly! I count it as one of my greatest honors that she asked me to serve on the board of OW. And I feel blessed to have been able to work personally with (who am I kidding? FOR) her. For me, it was the first time that I've serve under someone whom I counted as one of my heroes (my ego usually only has room for self-admiration). In other words....you have an inordinate interest in Kate Kelley yourself - after all, you both share the same favorite pastime, an obsessive compulsion to criticize the church and its leaders - , but just don't want others who don't share your blind devotion to her and her agenda, to just sit down and shut up. Oh, to be a fly on the wall the day you explain to Heavenly Father why Ms. Kelly is your "hero" and walk Him through exactly how she is so "right" and His prophets and apostles are so horribly, terribly "wrong". 3
Damien the Leper Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Kate Kelly finds the Church of Jesus Christ toxic -- or so it would appear.She probably would if she were a Bickertonite as they are the Church of Jesus Christ. Kelly finds the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints toxic. She has said nothing about THE ONE AND ONLY Church of Jesus Christ. We must be clear in our distinctions, Scott.
mormonnewb Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Oh, to be a fly on the wall the day you explain to Heavenly Father why Ms. Kelly is your "hero" and walk Him through exactly how she is so "right" and His prophets and apostles are so horribly, terribly "wrong". For some reason, I don't think that HF will need me to explain to Him that His prophets and apostles were wrong from time to time. I think He already knows that.
Damien the Leper Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Leaving me out of it, do people who leave the church reject God?Nope.
carbon dioxide Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 There is gender equality in the LDS Church. Every single blessing that God has for man is also available for women. The same gift of the Holy Ghost that is given to women is given to women. The same promises of exaltation given in the temple that are given to men are given to women. When I think about all this the thought that comes to my mind is how ungrateful God must see how people are. God asks us to do just a few things. He does not give all the same assignment but if they are faithful in their assignment, all that God has will be given to them. This really is sort of unfair to the GA of the Church as a faithful primary teacher is promised the same exact exaltation as the prophet of the Church. For those who demand "equality", they should really rethink what they are asking. Do they really want God to treat us fairly or give us what we deserve? I think many of us would not like the end result of that. Thankfully the atonement and grace of God allows us to receive that what we do not deserve. So when those women who demand the priesthood out of the sake or name of "gender equality" speak, what they are really saying to both the Father and Son is that what they offer is not enough. They want more because they are spoiled brats who think they are entitled. The whole Kate Kelly and OW women thing reminds me of Alma in Alma 29 desiring things that he wish he had but not given to him. We all know the story. When I read that account and apply it to OW, I change the words a little bit to fit that circumstance. I think both the wish of Alma and Kate Kelly and others are similar. The difference is that Alma was humble while Kate and others have chosen a different road. When I read Alma 29 and apply OW, these are sort of the words that come to my mind in how they should apply the issue. "O, if I had the priesthood, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and baptize, bless, and, and ordain others like the men. Yea, I would be like the men. Preside over meetings, and have the opportunity to be a bishop and have "equality" among men and women in the Church. But behold, I am a woman, and do sin in my wish, for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me." Sadly they decide to take an entirely different path than Alma did. 1
JAHS Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Let's get past smac97gate. He has explained his interest in current news stories and threats to the Church (of which he considers Kate Kelly to be one). I accept his answer. Furthermore, in hindsight, I realize that it was not my place to question his motives in the first place. His personal motivations for starting however many threads about Ms. Kelly are just that -- personal. I would apologize for overstepping my bounds, but we've recently been instructed that apologies are not Biblical, so I'll just leave it as "there may have been times when mormonnewb has made mistakes or has not acted in keeping with proper standards of decorum." Now, addressing the actual ideas expressed in the OP. What advice should Kate Kelly give to a woman who is considering leaving the Church? Should the answer always be to stay?Don't say anything. Mind her own business and let the women figure it out for themseles what they want.
mormonnewb Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Don't say anything. Mind her own business and let the women figure it out for themseles what they want. Is that what YOU say when an investigator asks if they SHOULD join the Church? "I'm minding my own business. You can figure it out for yourself!" Or are only faithful members allowed to have an opinion about membership in the Church? Edited July 19, 2015 by mormonnewb
mormonnewb Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) There is gender equality in the LDS Church. Every single blessing that God has for man is also available for women. The same gift of the Holy Ghost that is given to women is given to women. The same promises of exaltation given in the temple that are given to men are given to women. When I think about all this the thought that comes to my mind is how ungrateful God must see how people are. God asks us to do just a few things. He does not give all the same assignment but if they are faithful in their assignment, all that God has will be given to them. This really is sort of unfair to the GA of the Church as a faithful primary teacher is promised the same exact exaltation as the prophet of the Church. For those who demand "equality", they should really rethink what they are asking. Do they really want God to treat us fairly or give us what we deserve? I think many of us would not like the end result of that. Thankfully the atonement and grace of God allows us to receive that what we do not deserve. So when those women who demand the priesthood out of the sake or name of "gender equality" speak, what they are really saying to both the Father and Son is that what they offer is not enough. They want more because they are spoiled brats who think they are entitled. The whole Kate Kelly and OW women thing reminds me of Alma in Alma 29 desiring things that he wish he had but not given to him. We all know the story. When I read that account and apply it to OW, I change the words a little bit to fit that circumstance. I think both the wish of Alma and Kate Kelly and others are similar. The difference is that Alma was humble while Kate and others have chosen a different road. When I read Alma 29 and apply OW, these are sort of the words that come to my mind in how they should apply the issue."O, if I had the priesthood, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and baptize, bless, and, and ordain others like the men. Yea, I would be like the men. Preside over meetings, and have the opportunity to be a bishop and have "equality" among men and women in the Church. But behold, I am a woman, and do sin in my wish, for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me."Sadly they decide to take an entirely different path than Alma did.Interesting thought experiment. Now, do the same thing with blacks instead of women."O, if I had the priesthood, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and baptize, bless, and, and ordain others like white men. Yea, I would be like the white men. Preside over meetings, and have the opportunity to be a bishop and have "equality" among black and white men in the Church. But behold, I am a black man, and do sin in my wish, for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me."I just can't see why the Meet the Mormons movie doesn't start with these inspired words. Edited July 19, 2015 by mormonnewb
carbon dioxide Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Interesting thought experiment. Now, do the same thing with blacks instead of women. "O, if I had the priesthood, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and baptize, bless, and, and ordain others like white men. Yea, I would be like the white men. Preside over meetings, and have the opportunity to be a bishop and have "equality" among black and white men in the Church. But behold, I am a black man, and do sin in my wish, for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me." Is that how black men should have viewed their plight in 1977? If not, why should women in 2015 feel such contentment in what has been "allotted" unto them?That would be true also. I have no doubt that all faithful black men in the Church before 1978 will obtain the same exact blessings in the eternities as those that had the priesthood. We are all beggars to God. None of us have the right to make demands, campaign or go on crusades towards God on anything. If God tomorrow decided that whites should not have the priesthood and only blacks should have it, I am fine with it. If God decided tomorrow that only women should hold the priesthood and men should not have it, I am fine with it. Who am I to complain to God when he offers me more than I will ever deserve? God makes the decisions how he runs the Church. I have no say in the matter nor am I worthy enough to make a demand. I don't have a right to demand anything. Add on edit: My view of the priesthood is that it is the authority given to man to act in God's name. It is given to do the will of God. The priesthood should never be about the person who holds it. It should not be given to someone to satisfy their ego or build up their self esteem. It is about doing God's will. Thy will be done. When people use the gender equality argument, it immediately shifts to a "my will be done" argument. I want equality. I want to feel more valued. I want this or that rather than "Is this really want the Lord wants regardless of how I feel about it." I believe strongly that if women are ever ordained to the priesthood, those in the OW organization should be the last ones to get it. They desire it for the wrong reasons. Edited July 19, 2015 by carbon dioxide 2
bluebell Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Now, addressing the actual ideas expressed in the OP. What advice should Kate Kelly give to a woman who is considering leaving the Church? Should the answer always be to stay?The answer should be "Pray about it. It doesn't matter at all what I think. The only thing that matters is what God thinks." 4
JAHS Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Is that what YOU say when an investigator asks if they SHOULD join the Church? "I'm minding my own business. You can figure it out for yourself!" Or are only faithful members allowed to have an opinion about membership in the Church?No investigator has ever asked me if they should join the church. I teach them because they agree to be taught and let them decide for themselves. But I teach them the truths about the church; not what the feminist women want the church to be. Everyone can have their own opinion about membership in the church; but if they want to remian members of the church, and call themselves faithful members; they will not express an opinon to thousands of others that might encourage a person to not belong to the church. That's called apostasy. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) She probably would if she were a Bickertonite as they are the Church of Jesus Christ. Kelly finds the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints toxic. She has said nothing about THE ONE AND ONLY Church of Jesus Christ. We must be clear in our distinctions, Scott.In context, I am being clear. Most people acquainted with my posts know that I use the term Church of Jesus Christ as a shortened form for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Church leaders have asked us to do, and someone of average or better intelligence ought to be able to figure it out from context. I never say "Mormon Church," because it isn't the Church of Mormon, it is the Church of Jesus Christ. I don't very often say "LDS Church," because that tends to sever the name of the Lord Jesus Christ from His Church, and that's not proper. Doing so plays into the hands of those who spread the falsehood that the Church of Jesus Christ does not teach its members to follow Christ. Edited July 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Damien the Leper Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) In context, I am being clear.Most people acquainted with my posts know that I use the term Church of Jesus Christ as a shortened form for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Church leaders have asked us to do, and someone of average or better intelligence ought to be able to figure it out from context.I never say "Mormon Church," because it isn't the Church of Mormon, it is the Church of Jesus Christ. I don't very often say "LDS Church," because that tends to sever the name of the Lord Jesus Christ from His Church, and that's not proper. Doing so plays into the hands of those who spread the falsehood that the Church of Jesus Christ does not teach its members to follow Christ.I know what you meant. I was messing with ya. However, my defined distinctions still stand. Edited July 19, 2015 by Valentinus
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I know what you meant. I was messing with us. However, my defined distinctions still stand.You're free to make any definitions you want, but I won't be bound by them. That said, I take no position on what other people call their own churches.
mormonnewb Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 No investigator has ever asked me if they should join the church. I teach them because they agree to be taught and let them decide for themselves. But I teach them the truths about the church; not what the feminist women want the church to be. Everyone can have their own opinion about membership in the church; but if they want to remian members of the church, and call themselves faithful members; they will not express an opinon to thousands of others that might encourage a person to not belong to the church. That's called apostasy.If thousands of others asked you if they should join the Church despite their intentions to continue drinking, smoking and cavorting with women, would you encourage them to "join anyway"? Of course not. My guess is that you would encourage them to "choose the right", but if they were unwilling to do so, you wouldn't encourage them to be members despite not keeping any of the covenants.I don't think that would make you an apostate. And it would seem like counseling someone to feel free to walk away from the Church if they are unable to find peace with their role in it falls in the same category. Now, sure she isn't couching her advice in the same language of guilt and shame that a good Mormon would employ, but hey, not everyone is perfect.
sethpayne Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Doing so plays into the hands of those who spread the falsehood that the Church of Jesus Christ does not teach its members to follow Christ. CFR please. I've heard lots of critics claim that the LDS view of Jesus is heretical in that He is distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. I've also heard that Mormons don't really accept "grace" and for these reasons Mormons are not, as a matter of the critic's own private definition, "Christian." But I've not heard that Mormons do not *follow* Christ -- in the sense of keeping the commandments. Only that Mormons believe in a "different Jesus". By "follow" do you mean something different than these stock and stale theological critiques? Edited July 19, 2015 by sethpayne
JAHS Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 If thousands of others asked you if they should join the Church despite their intentions to continue drinking, smoking and cavorting with women, would you encourage them to "join anyway"? Of course not. My guess is that you would encourage them to "choose the right", but if they were unwilling to do so, you wouldn't encourage them to be members despite not keeping any of the covenants.I don't think that would make you an apostate. And it would seem like counseling someone to feel free to walk away from the Church if they are unable to find peace with their role in it falls in the same category. Now, sure she isn't couching her advice in the same language of guilt and shame that a good Mormon would employ, but hey, not everyone is perfect.Your strawman scenario is completely unrealistic and makes no sense. Thousands are not going to ask me if they should join the church. I have never had one do that yet. The people that kate is counseling are already members of the church and she is couseling them to leave. That is a real situation. She has a perfect right to do that if she wants but must suffer the consequences of such an action which is excommunication.
Recommended Posts