Kate Kelly Now Encouraging Others To Leave The Lds Church

[Damien the Leper]

I've read this several times now and still can't make sense of it.

It's the name and claim game. THE Church of Jesus Christ is not a single institution but a body of believers who accept a first century Jew as their apocalyptic messiah and savior.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm pretty sure it all boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong.    "

Not by a long shot.

[Damien the Leper]

Oh, and have a nice day!!

 

Is it possible to disagree without being so downright disagreeable??? Wow

It's what we do here at MDDB.

[smac97]

You think it is a dark path because you think YOU have the truth.

Yes. I admit to believing that I have the truth. And in other news, circles are round and water is wet.

Fine. Someday though you may be surprised.

You say that because you think YOU have the truth.

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

 

I have to disagree with this.

 

I'll quote Stephen E. Robinson's article from the 1988 Ensign.  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng

 

Individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."

 

There are people who are not members of the church who belong to the Church of the Lamb and people who belong to the Church of the Lamb have not rejected God.  

 

You're both right, There is a way where these two seemingly opposing points of view can be reconciled and harmonized. But rather than "spoon feed" the answer, I'll wait to see if someone is cares to come up with the solution on their own.

 

Membership in/Entrance to God's kingdom can only be gained by authoritative baptism.  Joseph taught there was no salvation between the pages of the Bible and nothing would save a man but a legal administrator.

No authorized baptism, no membership in the Church of the Lamb.

 

The LDS Church is NOT the "one true Church".  That is the Church of the Lamb.  However the LDS Church is the only Church that can currently provide entrance into the Church of the Lamb.  Membership is neither based on heart or record.  It is based on fulfillment of the God given requirement.  Those with the heart membership are ahead of the game but still need to follow the law.  Those that follow the law without their hearts won't be able to enjoy the blessing fully either.

[smac97]

Nonsense.  I have plenty of Catholic, Protestant, and EV friends who accept God and are more faithful than many LDS I know.

I can see where Sethpayne is coming from here. As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that other faith traditions have portions of truth in varying degrees, but not the "fulness" of the Gospel as described in scriptures such as D&C 42:15, D&C 109:15, D&C 35:17, D&C 39:18, D&C 20:9, D&C 1:23, D&C 42:12, D&C 133:57, D&C 35:12, D&C 104:58, D&C 45:28, D&C 27:5, D&C 66:2, D&C 39:11, D&C 90:11, and D&C 135:3. So in a sense it's sort of an apples-to-oranges comparison when we speak of "Catholic, Protestant, and EV friends who accept God and are more faithful than many LDS I know." I think are people from other faith traditions who have a lesser portion of the Gospel, but who study and adhere to that lesser portion with more vigor and devotion than, say, lukewarm or minimally/moderately devout Latter-day Saints. Put another way, there are people who have less, but who do more with that lesser portion than those who have access to but are indifferent to the greater light and knowledge found in the Restored Gospel. So Sethpayne makes a good point.

That said, I find very little value in "ranking" devotion to God, particularly as between members of differing religious groups. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). Instead, our duty is to proclaim the Restored Gospel so that as many people as possible are given the opportunity to receive "the greater portion of the word," so that "it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full." (Alma 12:10).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 20, 2015 by smac97

[Avatar4321]

I'm glad she got excommunicated

I'm not. I want her to repent.

[bluebell]

Membership in/Entrance to God's kingdom can only be gained by authoritative baptism.  Joseph taught there was no salvation between the pages of the Bible and nothing would save a man but a legal administrator.

No authorized baptism, no membership in the Church of the Lamb.

 

I disagree.  Everyone will eventually have to be baptized yes.  But not everyone will have to be baptized in mortality.

 

[smac97]

Yeah, I wonder where you got that "my way or the highway" mentality. Perhaps, growing up in the "one true church," you know, the only church that isn't an abomination in the sight of God. Perhaps, that is why she thinks of other feminists as being counterfeits (much like Elder Perry described families headed by gay and single parents as "counterfeits"). So do you have a problem (for lack of a better term) with the Brethren?

 

Elder Perry spoke of "all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established."  I don't think that is fairly described as including "single parent" families unless such families were created intentionally.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

Nah ..,,there really isn't.

 

Yeah, there really is.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

I  see that you have a problem with the lds church. You also seem to be more strident in your posts when you discuss the lds church. Why put the quotations around one true church? Do you believe that the lds church is the one true church? Do you have a testimony of the book of mormon? Kate said in her statement that those who do not find joy in the church should leave. I see no joy in your post. It is unfortunate that you seem to have lost your tesimony. I wish you peace.

 

To my knowledge the other churches were not an abomination but their creeds were. However, when one looks at christian history up until the first vision, there was much abomination going on. Christian history has been also a history of spilling blood whether in europe, latin america, the US etc.

 

With respect, may I request that we not personalize threads or grill others regarding their spiritual/doctrinal bona fides.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[bluebell]

You are obligated to provide a CFR when one is requested.  Please do so.

 

Not if it's already been answered by someone else.  This is because all Scott would have to do to satisfy you here is to just post the exact same thing that Cal already posted.  It that information would answer the CFR fully.  But, that would be repetitive and a waste of time and energy for everyone involved so there's no reason to force him to repost what has already been posted.

 

When you think about the purpose of CFRs, it makes sense on why it doesn't matter who posts the reference, only that it has been posted.

[smac97]

Now, that is a great question and something that I have struggled with recently.  One of the reasons for my fondness of Kate Kelly is that we are very much alike.  I also have a tendency to be quite strident, dismissive and insulting in making my case (I try to hide it, so it probably escaped your notice ...  ).  There are some pluses to this style of engagement.  For one, it makes it pretty difficult for your opposition to ignore you.  Second, it can endear you to those who already share your position (i.e., I love me some Kate).  The drawback, however, is that it doesn't endear you to those who disagree with you nor, and this is the important part, to those in the middle.  After a while, people began to see you as a "hot head," "smart aleck," "malcontent," [fill-in-your-favorite-phrase] and either: (1) begin to reflexively oppose EVERYTHING you say (e.g., why me) or (2) they don't take you seriously.

 

That being said, I'm not about to ask Sister Kate to change her ways because there is a place in every movement (and should be a place in every CHURCH) for people like her.  While you will reject the analogy, I thank HF for Malcolm X.  Without his fiery rhetoric and thinly-veiled hostility to oppression, the powers that be would have been less willing to consider the milder demands of Martin Luther King.  I think we're seeing the same thing in Mormon feminism.  I stridently, dismissively and insultingly contend that there has been more progress for women in the Church in the last two years than in the previous 30 years COMBINED.  "Reasonable, moderate and respectful" feminists like yourself stand on the shoulders of "hot-head loud mouths" like Kate Kelly.  As her (un)duly and (un)appointed representative on the board, I accept your thanks on her behalf!  You're welcome!

 

In short, you are arguing that the ends justify the means.  Is that correct?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[bluebell]

Not by a long shot.

 

I'll take your word for it, but you've failed to prove that point.

[JLHPROF]

 

I disagree.  Everyone will eventually have to be baptized yes.  But not everyone will have to be baptized in mortality.

 

 

You are splitting hairs.

Membership in the Church of Christ requires baptism, whether here or in the next life.

 

To say there are alternative paths into Christ's Kingdom (or alternative ways to God) is simply not true if you believe the gospel.

No man gets to the Father without going through Christ, or in other words, accepting the atonement and taking upon themselves his name.

 

Now back to Teacum's point, if you don't believe in the doctrines of restored Christianity is there another path to God?

And the answer is: only if the doctrines of restored Christianity are wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

You are obligated to provide a CFR when one is requested. Please do so.

I already have. I incorporated calmoriah's response by reference.

That you misunderstood what I meant is not my responsibility, especially now that you know better.

Put another way, I am not bound by your misunderstanding of my meaning.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not if it's already been answered by someone else. This is because all Scott would have to do to satisfy you here is to just post the exact same thing that Cal already posted. It that information would answer the CFR fully. But, that would be repetitive and a waste of time and energy for everyone involved so there's no reason to force him to repost what has already been posted.

When you think about the purpose of CFRs, it makes sense on why it doesn't matter who posts the reference, only that it has been posted.

Thank you.

Maybe Sethpayne will understand you better than me.

[mormonnewb]

As i said in an earlier post, it's from her own words and actions-things i've read that's she's written, quotes by her, and experiences she and her mother have shared in interviews. Her mother said herself that KK always got her way.

These are things i've read by her over a few years time so i can't guarantee i'd be able to provide any references to support that (though i might be able to find them so i'll try if you request it) but those are the things that have formed my opinion of her.

I'm a convert so only part of my growing up was in the church.

But don't be confused. It's not the fact that she thinks she's right that i have a problem with, nor that she speaks her opinion. It's that she insults everyone who doesn't agree with her. There's a difference between saying "these people are good people but their beliefs are not correct or o.k. with God" and "these people are not courageous, are weak, abusive, mindless, oppressors, etc."

She loves to try to shame anyone who disagrees with her. It's her MO. That is not the Brethren's MO.

Calling other family arrangements "counterfeit" wasn't an effort to shame (or at least, belittle) others?

[JAHS]

Calling other family arrangements "counterfeit" wasn't an effort to shame (or at least, belittle) others?

No it was said to warn us against an incorrect lifestyle. How people react to such a warning is their own problem.

[bluebell]

You are splitting hairs.

Membership in the Church of Christ requires baptism, whether here or in the next life.

 

 

 

I don't think i am.

 

Someone can reject the LDS church but still embrace God in mortality.  That's an important point in my opinion.  

[bluebell]

Calling other family arrangements "counterfeit" wasn't an effort to shame (or at least, belittle) others?

 

First, trying to imply that Elder Perry was talking about single parent families is a very uncharitable way to interpret his words.  It seems obvious to me that he was not talking about that.  I can see why you didn't include the actual quote because your paraphrase wasn't at all what he said and really hurts your point.

 

Second, no it's not an attempt to shame.  When someone calls fake money counterfeit (or even mistakenly calls real money counterfeit if you like that example better) is it because they are trying to shame or belittle the money?  

 

He's trying to teach doctrine as he understands it.  

[Nemesis]

Everyone stay on topic please. The thread is going in way to many different directions. If we can't do that I'll need to close the thread.

Nemesis

[Sleeper Cell]

Calling other family arrangements "counterfeit" wasn't an effort to shame (or at least, belittle) others?

 

Have we really reached the point where an apostle calling people to repentance is considered an effort to belittle them?  

 

Shaming and belittling?  A good thing Elder Perry didn’t say something like this:

 

This is a rebellious people, lying children that will not hear the law of the Lord.  Which say to the seers, “see not;” and to the prophets, “prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits.”  [isa. 30:9-10]

 

[mormonnewb]

In short, you are arguing that the ends justify the means. Is that correct?

Thanks,

-Smac

I am arguing that it takes BOTH kinds of action/rhetoric to bring about change (just as Kate suggested in her op-ed). By the way, this is something that MLK understood completely. He NEVER publicly criticized Malcolm X (despite the fact that Malcolm called him everything from a "stooge" to an "Uncle Tom"). Likewise, MLK never called the rioters "thugs" or "hooligans." He continually defended THEM (even while condemning violence) saying that a riot is the language of the unheard.

In fact, in the "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. King referred to "this marvelous new militancy" and cited it as the main reason for the "urgency of now." Or to put it more plainly, "Malcolm, Huey and some bruthas you don't even want to know about are about to burn this place to the ground if you don't start treating us right immediately!" Viola! Within months, we have a Civil Rights Act -- something that "respectable" black leaders had been requesting for two decades.

Sound familiar, Cal? Thirty years of respectful letter writing and within a year of my sisters committing ... cover your eyes, Smac97 ... misdemeanor criminal trespass, we have women praying in conference. Two years later, we have women being consulted about sacrament meeting.

Do you really think that is all one big coincidink?

[smac97]

So apparently Kate Kelly is not content with the distribution of her opinion piece via the Salt Lake Tribune.  It's also being published by RNS (Religion News Service) and by The Washington Post.

 

Also, I note that Kate Kelly is still advertising herself as the co-founder of OrdainWomen.  I wonder how the OW folks will respond to this development, as her present stance is rather hard to reconcile with the OW folks wanting to portray themselves as being "faithful" Latter-day Saints.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 20, 2015 by smac97