- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:
It is disturbing to me when the Q15 initiate the disciplinary action, but make it appear the action started at the local level. This seems dishonest to me. It is appropriate for the Q15 to mislead and hide, even lie, for the sake of PR and the “image” of the church? Can anyone address this better for me here?
I’m not convinced that the Q15 are directly behind disciplinary actions as people often think they are. I’ve only arrived at that conclusion after watching some of these actions very closely. Here’s why:
1) they don’t
have toget involved. There are plenty of lower leaders who see it as their patriotic duty to root out heretics. 2) in all cases I’ve seen, the person who is ex’d has a lack of relationship with the local leader in charge of the DC. This often happens when leadership changes and now the new person doesn’t know them or feels differently about them.
3) because of this patriotic tendency, dog whistle politics are very effective and often the only thing needed (no direct involvement) to whip up an aspiring local leader to action. On the downside of this one, it’s my opinion that the Q15 are divided on what constitutes an excommunicable offense, and unfortunately, they all have access to dog whistles and can get their own personal hobby horse messages out to those who are listening for the signal. Leadership roulette ensues. Good leadership is doing the littlest possible to achieve the outcome you desire. That’s also good engineering. Don’t get involved if someone lower down the chain will do it for you.
I’m not so sure HG. It appears that several actions have been initiated by Q15 members,…not the whole group, but individuals, including but not limited to Oaks and Packer. Michael Quinn indicated this, and others have as well. If I recall, there is possible action being taken against some of the locals who have blogged against the D&C 132 sections?
What is the story with Kate Kelly?
This is not something I have followed closely, so I will have to be set straight on this–but my understanding is that some of the fringe members have been ousted, and the impetus, the pebble that started the avalanche as it were, came from the Q15.
Quote:If I recall, there is possible action being taken against some of the locals who have blogged against the D&C 132 sections?
Yes, but the Van Allens were new to their stake. Also, someone in PR or the SMCC (not the Q15 or even the 70) had called their SP who said SLC had called him (vaguely), but then immediately backed down when confronted. It wasn’t really leadership. If I’m not mistaken, no further actions were taken, and their blog post was rather obscure (a first blog post) until some idiot went all Barbara Streisand effect.
Quote:What is the story with Kate Kelly?
She had “met” with her bishop and SP on some occasions, and she felt they were cool with her, or so she said, but that wasn’t really the case, and as soon as she moved, they essentially tried her in absentia.
With John D., his SP changed. His prior SP was someone he knew much better and counted as a friend.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:If I recall, there is possible action being taken against some of the locals who have blogged against the D&C 132 sections?
Yes, but the Van Allens were new to their stake. Also, someone in PR or the SMCC (not the Q15 or even the 70) had called their SP who said SLC had called him (vaguely), but then immediately backed down when confronted. It wasn’t really leadership. If I’m not mistaken, no further actions were taken, and their blog post was rather obscure (a first blog post) until some idiot went all Barbara Streisand effect.
Quote:What is the story with Kate Kelly?
She had “met” with her bishop and SP on some occasions, and she felt they were cool with her, or so she said, but that wasn’t really the case, and as soon as she moved, they essentially tried her in absentia.
With John D., his SP changed. His prior SP was someone he knew much better and counted as a friend.
OK….makes sense. The Van Allens are interesting.
What you said about Kate Kelly is disturbing though. I know people who think she is the devil herself,…whatever.
It would be most interesting to see how many of these people appealed to higher courts. I don’t know the answser to that if any…
I have great sympathy for Kate Kelly and her central cause; I have no sympathy for her actions immediately prior to her excommunication. Seriously, publishing six “lessons” and asking her group to teach those lessons to orthodox members in order to convert them to her perspective was . . . not naive, I believe. I can’t think of a faster way to be seen as opposing and fighting the Church.
Apostate is a legitimate word in many cases; it isn’t in others. We overuse it in our culture, but it has an important meaning that can’t be eliminated without serious, extensive consequences.
Quote:I have great sympathy for Kate Kelly and her central cause; I have no sympathy for her actions immediately prior to her excommunication. Seriously, publishing six “lessons” and asking her group to teach those lessons to orthodox members in order to convert them to her perspective was . . . not naive, I believe. I can’t think of a faster way to be seen as opposing and fighting the Church.
A few thoughts. I think we have very high expectations of our martyrs, and Kate didn’t meet mine either. I expected more savvy and more restraint. But yes, I too have sympathy for her on a personal level and for the cause of women in the church. I do see her as having been too naive and trusting, particularly of her local leaders, thinking they were OK with things they clearly weren’t. Particularly given how passive aggressive and polite Mormons can be, it’s tough for some of us to read between the lines. Again, from all I saw, she had reason to believe she had support from them, but she really didn’t.
The idea of the six discussions wasn’t even hers. She was certainly behind the movement, but she wasn’t behind that act. And I read through the six discussions. I didn’t think the content was a serious issue, personally, but the idea of proselyting feminism in a concerted manner was obviously too organized and alarming to the powers that be. And yet, feminism isn’t the great evil some at church HQ seem to think. As a woman and a mother of a daughter it greatly concerns me that feminism is vilified and misunderstood so much in our congregations and by some church leaders. E. Ballard telling women to speak up in councils, and then joking not to speak up TOO much . . . and getting a big laugh from his audience? That’s repugnant.
For those who want to read something excellent Sis. Kelly wrote about sexism in 2009, well before OW was a gleam in the eye or a thorn in the side, this is my favorite:
http://mormonmatters.org/2009/11/17/romantic-paternalism/ Ultimately, it’s my opinion that she was ex’d because she had a big following (media outlets like NYT were reporting on her group’s actions), she was the front-woman of the OW movement (cut the head off, so the saying goes, kill the snake), and her local leaders didn’t approve of her actions. My own opinion is that when the church agreed to broadcast the PH session, OW should have declared victory, cancelled the ticket requesting event, and lived to fight another day. The problem is publicity and effectiveness. The Van Allens never had any reach or a following, so their SP’s threat was just that – toothless.
I agree that I think Kate was a bit naïve, or at least played that card. It would seem to me that what made the brethren “go after the head of the snake” was the repeated priesthood session marches that were getting media attention. Or at least this was ONE of the big actions.
And as far as appealing to the 1st Presidency, I think I recall the CHI says you can appeal that the process was not followed, but not the decision. So if the SP or bishop follows all the rules, you really have no recourse as they will only rule on if a process was followed or not.
It is a label that describes a person who forsakes his religion or cause. I think in our church, it is a label that has this meaning. But it is also used by many TBM types to ostracize people or label people who no longer seem loyal to the church. I have been called apostate by a close friend. he used my negative experiences in the church. and my reactions to them, as an example of how reacting poorly to trials and behavior of members in the church leads to apostasy.
Strange friendship we have. That we are still good friends in spite of him telling me that…
Ignore it.
Hawkgrrrl: Thank you for the Kate Kelly link.
I was particularly amused by the Ethesis comment. I was at that RJCLS dinner.
Most RJCLS events I find painful. As a professional woman, there isn’t a place for me there. The men gather to talk law. The wives get together and ask each other “how many children do you have” and “what is your church calling”. The conversation bogs down there. Too many of my children are deceased and I don’t want a calling at this point.
If I mention work, there is always some wife who wants to make sure I know that THEY haven’t worked outside the home since they had their first child. You can imagine how that statement always makes me feel more included.
I joined the BYU Management Society in our area. . They have a women’s division. I went to their first mixer. It was focused on networking. I was the only degreed professional woman in the room. Everyone else was a student looking for work, or a SAHM looking for a part time job doing whatever they can find. There is nothing wrong with trying to break into business and get employment, but as the only person there who didn’t need a job, it is uncomfortable when the entire room looks at me like I’m some kind of odd animal because I am employed..
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I have heard the term “apostate” used by Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses in a similar way to how it is currently used in the LDS Church.Personally I think it is mostly just another example of the cultish us-versus-them thinking that is so prevalent in the Church. Basically the Church will tolerate members that believe something significantly different from the orthodox LDS doctrines as long as they keep quiet about it but as soon as anyone openly disagrees with the Church it is typically not going to be received very well in the Church. That’s what I think this apostasy label is mostly about, trying to enforce strict boundaries around what the official doctrines are supposed to be and expecting members to go along with what they are told without resistance. Ah, interesting. I’m not surprised about the Jehovah’s Witness use of the term, though. Back when I was TBM, I had a lot of respect for the faith. I considered our religions very similar. Sadly, I’ve learned about some of the experiences of disaffected Jehovha’s Witnesses and the shunning that can happen. I agree with your commentary about the us vs. them mentality.
On Own Now wrote:The key factor in a Mormon sense is opposition…
I agree. Persecution and opposition seem to be fundamental to not only Mormon doctrine and identity, but also as anecdotal evidence to support the divinity of the Church. I’ve found that opposition seems to get exaggerated at times just to make a point of how Satan is against the Church. I think this mentality is also damaging for progress in Church. Any criticism that is not coming from the inside and carefully constructed to be politically correct and non-blaming, is met with a defensive stance (I see this church-wide, although clearly not everyone).
On Own Now wrote:I have no problem with the term “apostate” when it comes to this type of opposition. Actually, I think it is appropriate.
I wish I had the same level of comfort. I simply can’t divorce the inherent condemnation and shame behind the term, even if the person in question is decidedly anti-Mormon. I find “ex-Mormon” or even “Anti-Mormon” more appropriate. And maybe it is this history and legacy of “apostasy” that makes me so uncomfortable with living people being labeled as such. Watching people be put in the same category as people who mobbed and drove out Missouri Saints? That makes me uncomfortable.
On Own Now wrote:I think there is a tendency for the disaffected (like us) to assign ourselves to the label of apostate,
even when the Church means someone else.
I think it’s not so simple for me. I’m beginning to feel like I’m not an “apostate” so as long as I keep my doubts to myself but once I give up living in secret, I’m walking the line. This is basically what I’ve been told by bishops, as well—across the United States. I feel like this line, “It’s okay to have questions, just ask them to the right people at the right place, and most importantly, to God. As long as you’re not out there advertising them.” I do believe these lines—at least for YSA Bishops—are coming from the higher ups. It’s too consistent and uniform to be random opinions of the Bishops.While people I love are in this Church and I’m not about to go out and make anti-Mormon proclamations, the knowledge that I essentially support and identify with apostates has done a number on my ability to feel comfortable in the Church. I feel like I’m secretly fraternizing with the Enemy.
While this is hearsay, didn’t Elder Oaks just talk about what constitutes apostasy at Boise? I thought he said something about it coming down to how you feel about the authority of the General Presidency and Apostles. While he’s just one man, he’s in the leadership of the Church. He may very well be our next President/Prophet (which, to me, is not a positive thought. Maybe that does make me an apostate
😳 ). I know he’s reacting to what happened in Idaho, but it seems to me that the general message is, “If you don’t support our apostles as speakers for God, and say something about it, or consistently disagree with what top leaders have said, you’re an apostate. Whether we excommunicate your or not for it is a different story.”
Roy wrote:On the other hand, when we are dealing with real people with lives of service in the church and loving families – are we not doing spiritual violence to them severing them so?
Roy, I agree with a lot of your insights. I understand an organization needs to have a line for practical reasons. I get that they don’t want people being able to claim, “I’m a Mormon” while preaching what the Church considers false doctrine. But I can’t let go of the fact that excommunication, based on theological differences, is so sad to me. Couple that with the damaging “apostate” label that gets thrown around. I can’t shake off why TBM’s often support these kinds of excommunications so adamantly. It’s almost like they’re reveling in the knowledge that someone has been pushed off the boat because they wouldn’t conform to “the Boat’s” norms.
Heber13 wrote:Apostate is a stage 3 word. There is utility for those in that stage. It is how stage 3 works.
I have a lot of respect for people who are past Stage 3 but are able to stay in a church that is primarily run by Stage 3 individuals, especially if they’re able to make it work well for them and thrive. That respect extends to a lot of people on this site. However, I do think that different people need different things to reach their full potential. Right now, I don’t think I can be in this Church. Oh, wow. That was hard to type. Maybe it will change. But for right now, I can’t step away entirely. I can’t let my mother know about my situation at the present time. So I’m “staying LDS” for her. Additionally, I want to continue thinking these things through and putting my heart, mind, and spirit into these decisions regarding my future in the Church. If my spirit wants to stay in this Church, I will. No general authorities or Church policies are going to prevent me from staying if I believe it is the right decision. But right now, I feel like I’m standing at the doorway on the way out. This process has been very hard for me. This Church means so, so much to me. It’s difficult.SilentDawning wrote:It is a label that describes a person who forsakes his religion or cause.
I think in our church, it is a label that has this meaning. But it is also used by many TBM types to ostracize people or label people who no longer seem loyal to the church.
Ignore it.
I don’t know if I can anymore. I don’t know if I want to live my life trying to ignore things like this. It’s exhausting.SilentDawning wrote:It is a label that describes a person who forsakes his religion or cause.
Under that definition the driving force is the individual, a person forsook their religion. In some cases people might consider the church to be the driving force. That’s not always a bad thing and the argument can always be made that the individual is ultimately still the driving force.
Using the “people unabashedly believe something other than the established dogma” definition of apostate: there will always be “apostates” on the bleeding edge of change. People that hold a future mindset will likely be labeled apostate by people of the current mindset. Today’s apostates become tomorrow’s baseline; tomorrow’s baseline runs the risk of labeling the people that are driving change in their generation as apostates. The cycle continues.
Paul was labeled an apostate, accused of teaching people to forsake Moses.
Acts 21:21 wrote:And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Paul, one of the most influential people in spreading Christianity. Apostate. An apostate for which many people today are extremely grateful. It makes you wonder what kind of future today’s apostates are creating and whether or not future people will be grateful for their efforts.
university wrote:
On Own Now wrote:I have no problem with the term “apostate” when it comes to this type of opposition. Actually, I think it is appropriate.
I wish I had the same level of comfort. I simply can’t divorce the inherent condemnation and shame behind the term
university, for me, peace (or comfort) comes from not worrying about terms that other people use to describe me. I only concern myself with whether or not I am an apostate, by my own definition of the term, and whether I care. In my case, I decided long ago that I would not become contrarian in regards to the Church and its people. I believe the Church has a right to exist and its people have a right to believe. So, I don’t work either in the open or behind the scenes to subvert the movement. There are things I work on to change, within the tiny sphere of influence that I have, but I work from within rather than from without. That makes me not an apostate, which is just how I intend it. If someone else wants to think of me as an apostate, I simply don’t care. Individual people do not speak for the Church. I can only control what I think. I have come to my own conclusion about what ‘apostate’ means. I see value in the term and I also see overuse of the term to extend where it doesn’t belong. It’s an interesting academic exercise and nothing more.FWIW, my stake president knows I’m not a believer and has done absolutely nothing to restrict me. On the contrary, he goes out of his way to make sure I feel welcome. I’m now on bishop #4 who has known I am not a believer. I’m friends with each one of them. I’ve held multiple callings during this time, including Gospel Doctrine teacher. During our priesthood lesson this week on prophets, I raised concerns about the infallibility question. I tried to be as respectful as possible. I didn’t talk about “failures”. I used the term “missteps”. I presented my concerns as a question, not a pronouncement. Though I tried to soft-pedal as much as I could, I did specifically mention race and the priesthood as an example. I was not shouted down or thrown out of the quorum.
I understand where organizations have to establish rules & limits on the membership usually within the doctrines it teaches & believes. In business, we have the employer & employee relationship. There are usually are codes of conduct that established & enforced on all levels of the organization. I get it & I accept it. I’ve tried to think of instances where Jesus used the terms Apostate or Excommunication or Disfellowshipped.
There are other words I believe are worse than Apostate. Hopeless, Unloved, Unwanted.
I want to believe that they don’t apply in the Church when someone is Ex’d or Disfellowshipped.
amateurparent: Quote:Most RJCLS events I find painful. As a professional woman, there isn’t a place for me there. The men gather to talk law. The wives get together and ask each other “how many children do you have” and “what is your church calling”. The conversation bogs down there. . . .If I mention work, there is always some wife who wants to make sure I know that THEY haven’t worked outside the home since they had their first child. You can imagine how that statement always makes me feel more included.
I can relate! In Singapore, there was a new sister in RS who stood to introduce herself. She said, “We just finished law school.” I went up to her after to introduce myself (I’m not a lawyer, but was there as an expat executive with Amex). I said, “Wow, you both did law school at the same time! I bet that was crazy!” Then she said, “Oh, no, I didn’t go to law school. I just meant my husband did.” I wasn’t sure what to say to that. I’m sure she was supportive, but that just seems weird to me to say it that way. It’s like when men refer to “when we were pregnant.”
My worst ward experience was a ward in SLC. The women were all super nice, and I’m still FB friends with many of them, but I was one of two women who had a career. A few others had jobs, but the kind of thing I did in high school or college on the side. Most didn’t work at all. It was just difficult to relate because they had so much time on their hands that their interests were completely different from mine. When I moved to Scottsdale, it was exactly the opposite. I felt like the mother ship had called me home.
Quote:When I moved to Scottsdale, it was exactly the opposite. I felt like the mother ship had called me home.
Hawkgrrrl:
We moved 6 years ago within the same city. Different ward. The last ward it was the norm to be a working professional LDS woman. It was an awesome ward. The ONE TRUE ward. This ward has bigger houses, and an average higher net worth, but it is considered less acceptable for wives to work. The majority of the women do work, but it is very discreetly done, and not really discussed.
The past bishop of this ward cannot talk to me without commenting, “Well AP, we know that you work .. But we are so blessed that we can afford for my wife to be home with our children.” (His wife helps run his insurance business).
Each time he says it, I feel like he is trying to tell me that a REAL husband could financially support a family — and it just PISSES me off because my DH does quite well financially and I dislike the insinuation that he doesn’t.
Each time I give him the same answer, ” I was home for 14 years, my life changed and I needed a different identity. I am so glad that I went back to grad school and residency. I LOVE what I do.”
What I really want to say is, “Quit being an asshole.”
Quote:What I really want to say is, “Quit being an asshole.”
I imagine Jesus felt this way all the time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.