NYT article: John Dehlin & Kate Kelly face discipline

[Anonymous]

journeygirl wrote:

Orson wrote:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Also doesn’t having the second anointing mean you can’t be ex’d? I’d have to check on the history angle on that one.

My impression is it assures your position in the kingdom as long as you don’t deny the Holy Ghost, but if you do turn from the church you have a good chance at the son of perdition status.

From what I understand, this is accurate. I don’t know if they can be exed but it seems like this ordinance guarantees you get to the celestial kingdom, so would that supersede a church disciplinary counsel? From that Tom Phillips interview, it seems they don’t even discuss the possibility of what happens when someone leaves after they have had it done. And by the way, the wife also receives this ordinance with her husband, but she doesn’t have the laying on of hands part from him.

You’re going to have a hard time with this one. There are exactly zero official sources to turn to about it so everything and anything you think you know about it is speculation or second hand (at best).

[Anonymous]

Rejecting the concept of the second anointing is one of my own, personal heresies. I understand it, intellectually, but it doesn’t resonate at all with me.

[Anonymous]

Did a little digging. Tom P has neither been ex’d nor has he resigned. And there is plenty of historical precedent for exing people with 2A, although the ordinance was more popular in the earlier days of the church, so most of the precedent is from over 50 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Rejecting the concept of the second anointing is one of my own, personal heresies. I understand it, intellectually, but it doesn’t resonate at all with me.

Step lightly here my friend. The church has mixed up the definitions of Heresy and Apostasy, so while in the normal definition you are a heretic, some in the church may find you an apostate!

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Rejecting the concept of the second anointing is one of my own, personal heresies. I understand it, intellectually, but it doesn’t resonate at all with me.

I see the 2nd anointing as nothing more than the other half of the endowment. I do not believe it has any magical power to exalt an individual come hell or high water (regardless of how anybody else has understood it). Similar to JS promising salvation to entire households of the women who became his plural wives. This just cuts at the root of what I believe the gospel to be. I therefore reject literal interpretations while remaining open to symbolic ones. I do imagine that it could be a very personal and meaningful experience between a husband and a wife.

[Anonymous]

Roy’s comment is a fairly good elaboration on my own view – better than my abbreviated comment was.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Rejecting the concept of the second anointing is one of my own, personal heresies. I understand it, intellectually, but it doesn’t resonate at all with me.

You can reject the concept all you want but it’s been going on for a long time and over the last 15+ years has been increasing. It is as Roy said the other half of the endowment, a point I missed when at the temple. People are instructed not to talk about it even to family. Just be prepared for the letter that tells you and your wife to show up at the temple at a certain time and date and have a story to cover where you were. :shh:

[Anonymous]

As far as splitting up the endowment is concerned… I always wondered why the endowment most members participate in isn’t split up. Seems like the thing to do would be to give it piecemeal where the next portion was only given once people had time to learn and grow based on the portions that were already received.

I just looked at the thread I’m posting in. Straying a bit. :angel:

[Anonymous]

Quote:

You can reject the concept all you want but it’s been going on for a long time and over the last 15+ years has been increasing.

I know. I just don’t care.

I think there are thousands upon thousands who will never fall away from God (in all religions and denominations) who live and die without anyone in position to propose an ordinance knowing about them, and I think the ones who will fall awy won’t be stopped by an ordinance based on someone else’s belief in them (or their own assumptions about themselves). As I said, I understand the concept intellectually – and I absolutely believe it is a powerful and wonderful experience for nearly all (if not all) of those who experience it. It just doesn’t resonate with me.

[Anonymous]

On another thread, I wrote “Kate Kelly epitomizes the mormon apostate.” I want to address the following reply:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Meaning what exactly? The actual definition of apostasy is: “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.” Kate did not do this at all. I think what she epitomizes is that Mormons don’t know the actual definition of apostasy. She also wasn’t officially ex’d for apostasy. The LDS church defines apostasy as: “when individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel.” In practice, though, it usually means anything leaders view as disloyal, which is so loosely defined as to be meaningless.

When Chad Hardy (Mormon missionary shirtless calendar guy) was ex’d he was asked if he would comply with the request to stop making his calendars if TSM asked him to, and he said no and gave his reasons (primarily that he was in a business partnership with another person and he was the steadying influence in that partnership where the church was concerned). So his “disloyalty” as evidenced by his answer was why he was ex’d. Early church members who were ex’d for apostasy were likewise presented with a “loyalty test” to see if they would do what leaders told them even if it went against their conscience, and when they refused to comply, they were ex’d.

We call things apostasy that aren’t. Chad Hardy wasn’t a believer anymore. Kate Kelly bore her testimony the fast & testimony meeting before she was ex’d. How is that the epitome of apostasy? She was (and I believe still is) a believer. She just also believes in her cause and that according to personal revelation, this was important to raise in the way she did.

She founded an organization that promulgated teachings contrary to that of the church, sought recruits, and was defiant when an answer was provided and she was asked to stop. That fits well with this:

Quote:

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng

[Anonymous]

I agree that Kate Kelly is a clear Mormon activist.

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between an activist and an apostate in the LDS church. Does an activist who uses the wrong “tone” cross the line into apostasy? Is an insistant and impatient activist by definition an apostate? Does persisting in activism after one is asked to stop apostasy? Would Ray become an apostate if he was asked to stop participating at StayLDS and he persisted? Does it matter who asks you to stop? Would I be an apostate if I refused to stop for my bishop or stake president but would be willing to stop if asked by TSM?

Is there ever any room for faithful activism? How about faithful opposition? How might you define those terms?

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

… Would Ray become an apostate if he was asked to stop participating at StayLDS and he persisted? Does it matter who asks you to stop? Would I be an apostate if I refused to stop for my bishop or stake president but would be willing to stop if asked by TSM? ….

[emoji6]

[Anonymous]

Shawn, please elaborate. I’ve already given a contrary viewpoint on each of these points you raise, so I’ll do it again. Maybe you will actually answer it this time:

Quote:

She founded an organization that promulgated teachings contrary to that of the church,

What “teachings” were contrary to that of the church? That leaders would have to have revelation for women to get the priesthood? That leaders should seek revelation? Were there factual errors in the historical information on the OW site (I’ve read it, and I didn’t see any).

Quote:

sought recruits,

What’s a “recruit”? Recruited to do what? How does a “recruit” differ from a like-minded person who simply agrees with you?

Quote:

and was defiant when an answer was provided and she was asked to stop.

What answer was provided and by whom? Is public affairs being quoted in the newspaper the same thing as being provided an answer and being told to stop? At no time did anyone from church leadership engage directly with Kate despite OW’s repeated requests for a meeting. Nobody ever at any time answered the question that OW asked which was if leaders would pray about the time being right for women to be ordained. Leaders still haven’t stated that they have prayed about it. They just said it’s not theirs to change, which the OW movement has asserted all along: it requires revelation. Nobody in leadership has claimed that they sought this revelation even yet.

[Anonymous]

I understand the point made of asking questions vs. making demands. As I have spent more time thinking about the difference I am starting to see KK’s point that a demand is a question with urgency. A demand can become something else, such as an ultimatum, so we should be aware of and sensitive to the “demand spectrum.” I can see the potential for damage to the church becoming a problem that the church would need to deal with. Where member actions cross the line from inconvenient to potentially damaging will always be fuzzy. It is a difficult thing to focus on charity/long suffering while also trying to defend the church from potential threats. I don’t see how OW has become truly threatening, but I do understand the perception of threat.

[Anonymous]

I am reposting hawkgrrrl’s reply to my post in twolamps’ introduction thread so that I can reply. I hope that’s ok.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

1. Gathered followers for her own cause,

Or conversely, there are like-minded people who all came together and are independent thinkers who posted their own profiles. “Her” cause is also theirs.

Quote:

2. Demanded change,

Or conversely, requested that leaders pray for revelation, which is what they said. I think the phrasing “Ordain women” sounds like a demand, but it isn’t. Also, the site’s mission statement said that nothing short of ordination would create equality, but it sounded more like an opinion when I read it, not a demand per se. It’s a matter of interpretation I suppose. Church leaders took it in the context of a demand. It was a poor word choice IMO given the church’s hyper-sensitivity to face-saving.

Quote:

3. Disobeyed her leaders when they told her to stop doing 1 and 2.

And by “leaders,” you mean the PR department who didn’t so much tell her to stop as tell the press that they should stop. Or maybe you meant her local leaders who brought her in for a conversation. They “agreed to disagree,” then her leaders assumed she would take that as a cease & desist order, and she took it as a lively discussion. Isn’t Mormon Passive Aggression dandy?

hawkgrrrl,

Let me preface my reply by stating again that I do not think that what KK did was wrong. I respect her for her courage and I believe her cause (which is shared by many) is just. I do not like the way her local leaders handled the situation, though I believe their actions were partially a result of pressure from up the ladder. I am merely arguing the point that the church acted consistently with how it usually acts in these cases.

In defense of my original three points:

1. Definitely like-minded people came together and are still coming together in the gathering place she provided. She gave them a gathering place and became the leader. I see the six discussions on the OW website and the explicit instructions on how to start a discussion group and invite others to attend as an attempt to gather more for the cause. I am not saying those who she gathered were not already like-minded independent thinkers.

2. After giving this some more thought, I agree that this is a matter of interpretation. I chose to use the term “demanded change” for the very reasons you gave: the name of the cause “Ordain Women” and the subheading to the OW website “MORMON WOMEN SEEKING EQUALITY AND ORDINATION TO THE PRIESTHOOD.” I totally agree that church leaders saw it as a demand.

3. I meant local leaders. I was referring to a letter dated May 22, 2014 from KK’s stake president to KK putting her on probation. Her stake president says:

Quote:

Sincere repentance will be demonstrated by your actions. In order to end this probation, you will need to demonstrate over a period of time that you have stopped and refrained from teachings and actions that undermine the doctrine of the priesthood, the Church itself and its leaders, that you have taken down or done all you can to take down http://www.ordainwomen.org and disassociated yourself from Ordain Women. You must be truthful in your communications with others regarding matters that involve your priesthood leaders, including the administration of Church discipline, and you must stop trying to gain a following for yourself or your cause and lead others away from the Church.

It is important that you understand that you are not required to change your thinking or the questions you may have in your own mind regarding the ordination of women, but you need to make it a private matter and work through this issue with your bishop or branch president.

hawkgrrrl, I am sure you have already read this letter, but I’ll post the link for the benefit of anyone who hasn’t:

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-05-22-Informal-Probation-Letter-to-Kate-Kelly.pdf” class=”bbcode_url”>http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-05-22-Informal-Probation-Letter-to-Kate-Kelly.pdf

I hope this clarifies my previous post 🙂.

[Author]

Posts