Home Page Forums Spiritual Stuff Why did this happen?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #208991
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I am still trying to process the excommunication of Kate Kelly. I do not want to believe that other than a few die hard orthodox believers thought this was a good thing. It seems an angry thing on the part of a few men to tell a women she now basically is cast out of heaven, for what most consider an issue of gender equality.

    Perhaps I am deceived but Kate seemed like a very thoughtful and caring person. An intelligent women who was articulate in her responses. And for all indications a true believer. I can not imagine why people would think the church is better without her. And I do not for a moment believe this was a local issue with no input from the highest levels.

    I have no idea where this leaves the church. Not being much a believer myself I still had some hope the church could change and provide some value to my children and grandchildren. I have lost that hope for the most part now. All I seem to be able to see is what the detractors claim it to be. A facade masquerading as church. Yet I am powerless to change anything. I feel like we are on a steady march to oblivion, with no ability to do an about face

    The answers were so simple how to deal with Kate, yet the leaders could not see for their own biasis. I just wonder why this had to happen?

    #287302
    Anonymous
    Guest

    The three men who exed Kate did more damage to the church in one night than John Larsen and john Dehlin and Kate Kelly did in 10 years combined.

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

    #287303
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Cadence wrote:

    All I seem to be able to see is what the detractors claim it to be. A facade masquerading as church. Yet I am powerless to change anything. I feel like we are on a steady march to oblivion, with no ability to do an about face

    To be fair – from an unbelieving perspective all churches are facades (or organizations that provide community, teach moral values, and perhaps manipulate some level of obedience/loyalty). Granted the LDS church seams like a teenager compared to some of the older more seasoned churches. Maybe the glass is half full – at least we don’t torture and execute our heretics. :mrgreen:

    #287304
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Cadence – If you could order the world or life, what would you want, where could life purpose be found, where could people go to find support for the ideals you are looking for?

    Like many others I have grieved over the events of the past couple of weeks and months. I still can’t fully present my own feelings on the matters that have taken place. I had hoped for a more nurturing response – on both sides. As a desirer of the noblest in humanity – I hoped my church would demonstrate something different.

    The challenge for me is – walking forward. You see I still want that noblest envisionment. I want a community that performs as Christ performed.

    You raise the question “Why did this happen?” Though your post wasn’t really about that, the answer to the question is humanism. This happened because of humanism. There is no place in the world to stop humanism. The only way to escape it is to find an island and live alone. And there aren’t many of those left. Which means there is no place to run to.

    You mention an about face – what did you envision as the about face? What would it look like and why does it need to happen? I ask this because if there is no place to run to – is there a place/way to build with. Can you help your envisionment happen? Is it necessary for the LDS religion?

    Maybe this painful event has made room for us to ask ourselves some deep questions and see what happens. As an aside, last week felt like death or funeral. A personal loss. It takes a long time to get over that type of pain. I don’t plan to feel better soon. Whether I stay or leave, it’s in the periphery of my soul right now. That’s a fact.

    #287305
    Anonymous
    Guest

    To me, it simply confirmed the uncaring side of the church I’ve experienced full force for several decades. It also appears to be a throw-back to a time when the dominant management style was command and control. With that comes punishments for deviations from policy, and a more distant , impersonal organization.

    I saw a picture of Harold B Lee and he epitomizes what the old century manager looked like of a large corporation — white shirt, tie, big black glasses, suit. Drop the black glasses and you’ve got the church today. To me, the way we dress is very symbolic of the time in which our dominant leadership style emerged in the church, and we have it still today.

    #287306
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Cadence wrote:

    I do not want to believe that other than a few die hard orthodox believers thought this was a good thing.

    A lot of people would say that is wasn’t “good,” but it was “right.” I have no idea.

    All I know is how is has affected me. I’m discouraged; I wish they’d have just left her alone. And, to add to the problems in my house, it seems to have caught the attention of my husband, who didn’t know her name a month ago. It’s been the focus of tension between us as the internet “conversation” (using the term generously) about KK/OW has continued several weeks now.

    #287307
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Why did this happen? Humanism is a good answer.

    There is plenty of “blame” to go around, on both “sides” of the issue. It isn’t a case of one faultless person against an uncaring institution – nor is it objectively nearly all the fault of one or the other. The current result saddens me greatly, but, objectively, saying it is all on the church leaders and not at all on Sister Kelly is just as wrong as putting all the blame on her.

    This was not a simple situation, and, as such, I think it illustrated quite clearly how difficult, messy and problematic charges of apostasy can be.

    We also have another reasonably current thread with WELL over 100 comments on the exact same question. There is a lot of good input in that thread.

    #287308
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I believe that in many ways, we are still paying for the mistakes of Kirtland, Independence, and Nauvoo. And there was plenty of blame to go around. The exodus to Utah, and the ensuing years of conflict over polygamy. hardened the organization into a brittle, isolationist bunker mentality that prompts us to separate from the rest of humanity and purge ourselves with self-defeating witch hunts.

    The people are ready for some “meat”, starved after decades of milk and juvenile obedience-driven spirituality. As a people, we are ready for some growing pains. We need to put away the childish things, and face the dark closet of fear. We are ready to realize that there is no boogie man there–only our own childish fear. It’s time to “man up” and face the reality that spiritual things are nuanced, and there is no black-and-white. This includes the leaders of the church. They’ve done us no favors by creating a church full of fearful, guilt-ridden, personality-cult worshipping spiritual sycophants. We can be more. We can do more. We don’t need Moses to stand between us and God anymore. We are ready to be a kingdom of priests and priestesses.

    Kate’s excommunication, although very painful, is just a drop in the bucket of the pain to come.

    Growing pains are inevitable. We can be independent men and women of God if only we can let our fears allow us to see beyond the dogmas of the present. I believe Zion will be filled with the glorious diversity of God’s children, who are one not because they all think and look alike, but because our charity binds us together in spite of our differences.

    The information age is here. We can grow up and accept our heritage, warts and all, or we can wallow in a dark corner of self-induced ignorance.

    #287309
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Old-Timer wrote:

    Why did this happen? Humanism is a good answer.

    There is plenty of “blame” to go around, on both “sides” of the issue. It isn’t a case of one faultless person against an uncaring institution – nor is it objectively nearly all the fault of one or the other. The current result saddens me greatly, but, objectively, saying it is all on the church leaders and not at all on Sister Kelly is just as wrong as putting all the blame on her.

    The difference in my my mind is KK wanted some dialogue and was ready to engage. The church wanted no part of that. they ignored her and her group and cast them aside. It was just plain mean. Could KK have done something different? I suppose so but what?

    #287310
    Anonymous
    Guest

    We all see what we see, me included. Humanism and all that jazz.

    #287311
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Hi, all – I didn’t realize until this thread that I’d reached some kind of tipping point. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the wise words and support, but I need to take a break from caring so much. I hope you all enjoy a beautiful summer.

    #287312
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I think it happened because Kate Kelley was persistent and unbending with her demand. From the beginning of OW, she has called for the ordination of women and said “nothing less will suffice.” After being notified of the disciplinary council, she wrote:

    Quote:

    Convening a council in my absence, after I have moved, is both cowardly and unchristlike…

    I am proud of what we have done together. We told the truth.

    I am inspired by the courageous Mormon women and men who have sacrificed so much to advocate for gender equality. We took a stand and will continue to do so.


    I don’t see any room for compromise there. It appears she wasn’t interested in any dialogue beyond presenting her demand.

    #287313
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Shawn wrote:

    I don’t see any room for compromise there. It appears she wasn’t interested in any dialogue beyond presenting her demand.

    I respect your opinion Shawn. At the same time I don’t know that there were ever any real channels of open dialogue available. As I understand it the church refused to come to the table with OW (even though it did meet with another woman’s group). A disciplinary council does not seem to be a good place for dialogue.

    #287314
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Clearly it didn’t have to happen this way. They could have just come out and said they don’t have any intention of changing this and then wait and see what happens after that; it sounded like Ordain Women already weren’t planning on trying to get into the General Conference priesthood meetings anymore anyway. Also, I don’t believe the PR spin that this was simply a matter for local leaders to decide. She wasn’t even living in that stake at the time so it looks like they really wanted to push a judgment through the process for some reason. It sounds like L. Whitney Clayton and M. Russell Ballard visited this stake shortly before this happened and specifically called the Ordain Women movement an example of apostasy.

    I think it happened mostly because some Church leaders felt threatened by the idea of an organized sub-group pushing to change something that has already been the way it is for so long and that many assume is the way God wanted it. My guess is that some of them think most women in the Church are already satisfied with the way things are and this is just a minority of vocal agitators but they didn’t like the media attention generated by them or attempts to recruit more supporters. Maybe they also saw it as an a deliberate act of disobedience that undermines the Church’s goals and thought she deserved to be punished for this so they wanted to take a stand to show this group who was boss.

    #287315
    Anonymous
    Guest

    mom3 wrote:

    …You raise the question “Why did this happen?” Though your post wasn’t really about that, the answer to the question is humanism. This happened because of humanism. There is no place in the world to stop humanism. The only way to escape it is to find an island and live alone. And there aren’t many of those left. Which means there is no place to run to…You mention an about face – what did you envision as the about face? What would it look like and why does it need to happen? I ask this because if there is no place to run to – is there a place/way to build with. Can you help your envisionment happen? Is it necessary for the LDS religion?

    I don’t know, it seems like even the dreaded secular humanism would have advocated just letting women have an equal say and equal opportunities because there is no obvious reason not to when discounting the special status of established traditions and “eternal” dogma of supposed supernatural origin. If you mean that people in general are only human and make mistakes and can be particularly mean and judgmental sometimes then I think that is part of it but even in that case I think it goes beyond that and says something about the current LDS culture as well. Basically obedience, conformity, and loyalty to the organization are highly valued in the LDS culture but openly disagreeing with or questioning the status quo are obviously not. So if you want to continue to associate with the Church and its faithful members your best bet is to keep any disagreements or doubts about the party line to yourself because they will typically not be well received.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.