- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m not sad; I’m sickened. Honestly, I see John and Kate as differently as I can see two people. Kate has never questioned the church’s revelations or the role of prophets whereas John has ridden a roller coaster and taken a lot of people along for the ride. Kate consistently reinforced the need for church leaders to seek revelation on the role of women. That’s not what apostates do. That’s what faithful people do. At times I wonder if what’s outlawed in the church is having both a vagina and a brain. At other times, I simply think anyone who is not straight up Republican is being shown the door. Quote:“There is room for questions and we welcome sincere conversations.”
It sure doesn’t feel like it today. And it often doesn’t seem like it on most Sundays. In fact, the opposite of “sincere” is what is allowed in many cases. Pretending to fit norms is more like it. To me, that’s lying.
Quote:“We hope those seeking answers will find them and happiness through the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Perhaps if the church starts offering lobotomies. Guess what? Seeking answers brings peace, but it doesn’t always bring happiness in the short term. Christian belief is a long game.
From Robert D. Putnam’s book American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us about the political polarization in religion since the 1990s:
Quote:“During the 1990s Americans of all ages became increasingly uneasy about mixing religion and politics. It is not surprising that younger Americans, still forming religious attachments, translated that uneasiness into a rejection of religion entirely. This group of young people came of age when “religion” was identified publicly with the Religious Right, and exactly at the time when the leaders of that movement put homosexuality and gay marriage at the top of their agenda. And yet this is the very generation in which the new tolerance of homosexuality has grown most rapidly. . . .
Instead the new nones* reported that “they became unaffiliated, at least in part, because they think of religious people as hypocritical, judgmental or insincere. Large numbers also say they became unaffiliated because they think that religious organizations focus too much on rules and not enough on spirituality. It is also unsurprising that the increasing opposition to religious influence in politics and government . . . is heavily concentrated among the new nones.”
If there is no room in this church for critical thinking or for people who love those who are different from themselves or who think differently from themselves, then there is no room for me. The news makes me sad also. I assume that a case for apostasy is made when an organized protest or public words are given. If they were just personal opinions it wouldn’t be grounds for discipline. But becoming active opens one up for this kind of thing. Although I’m sure many leaders have disagreed but not felt like discipline was needed, it often only takes a few squeaky wheels to get a council to vote on action. I don’t see why the church should have to fear these two individuals.
But perhaps the church will actually create a greater news media storm about the causes these two stand for by taking such a rigid stance against it.
It’s too bad. For everyone.
It’s bound to happen when mortals run the show.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SilentDawning wrote:What I am about to ask is NOT a rhetorical question.
What distinguishes John and Kate Kelly from the disaaffected bloggers in the bloggernacle such as those of us at StayLDS? Is it that they are very vocal, have spoken to the press? Or is it that they intend to influence others to act or believe in ways that are not in alignment with traditional church thinking?
I’ve wondered the same thing, SD. I can only speculate, of course, because I haven’t spoken with the local leaders involved and don’t know what they’re thinking. Reading the letter to John Dehlin, it actually looks to me as though the SP is asking him if he wants his name removed because of what is posted on his website. Looking at his website, it would appear that John has gone beyond questioning, doubt, and uncertainty and states he doesn’t believe some of the very fundamental “true church” claims of the church. The letter to John also offers to meet with him, and apparently John has responded that he would like to do so. While it indicates there will likely be a disciplinary council should he choose not have his name removed, one has not yet been scheduled and I suppose after meeting with the stake president it is possible one might be avoided (but I doubt that). Interesting to me here was that this option is being offered in lieu of a disciplinary council – perhaps the wording has changed in the handbook, but in my days in the bishopric the handbook read that name removal was not a substitute for a disciplinary council (paraphrased).
Kate’s a different story, different circumstance. The letter outlining her being placed on probation does make it clear she has been asked to cease her activities which are in opposition to the church (his words, not mine). In this case, she has made herself a lightning rod (IMO) and has been, as you say, very vocal.
DISCLAIMER: The above is my own analysis based on available evidence. It is not indicative by my agreement or disagreement with any of the circumstances of the named individuals or of the respective church leaders.
I did once sit on a disciplinary council for which the individual was charged with apostasy. The individual did not attend, but was not bitter toward the church. We spent a great deal of time defining what actually constituted apostasy – the handbook was not very clear. The circumstances were very different, and I’m not sure I should give a great deal of detail other than to say that in this particular case the individual was not openly teaching against the church. But after much prayer and a very clear manifestation of the Spirit the individual was excommunicated for apostasy. I was very sad (I knew this person quite well and had been the home teacher), but I also felt strongly that this was the appropriate decision, believing the person was likely never going to “repent” (at least not in this life). Many years down the road and after my own faith crisis I still believe it was the right thing to do for that individual and for the church.
SilentDawning wrote:What I am about to ask is NOT a rhetorical question.
What distinguishes John and Kate Kelly from the disaaffected bloggers in the bloggernacle such as those of us at StayLDS? Is it that they are very vocal, have spoken to the press? Or is it that they intend to influence others to act or believe in ways that are not in alignment with traditional church thinking?
I think the reason is that they are two high profile individuals that represent the disaffected. It’s mostly symbolic.
I don’t necessarily agree with John Dehlin or Kate Kelly, but I admire and appreciate their work.
In my opinion, whoever is behind these disciplinary councils has confused cause and effect. They see John Dehlin facilitating a discussion on doubt and think, “Look! John Dehlin has caused all these people to doubt the church.” Or they see Kate Kelly leading a group of dissatisfied women and think, “Look! Kate Kelly made all those women dissatisfied with the church.” But the doubts and dissatisfaction were already there. John Dehlin and Kate Kelly just gave them a voice. By all accounts their work has kept people with doubts and concerns in the church, not led them away from it.
Using the parable of the lost sheep, it’s like John Dehlin and Kate Kelly have gathered together a bunch of sheep who have wandered away when someone sees them and says, “Hey you! What are you doing with those sheep? Why are you leading them away from the flock?”
I hope that we as a people can learn from this experience and do better.
DarkJedi wrote:I can only speculate, of course, because I haven’t spoken with the local leaders involved and don’t know what they’re thinking.
My speculation as to what they are thinking:
Oh crap, oh crap, oh crap! I better do this or BKP is going to come after me next.
[img]http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/sykonist/looney-tunes/256/Foghorn-Leghorn-icon.png [/img] That’s a joke son.
DarkJedi wrote:Interesting to me here was that this option is being offered in lieu of a disciplinary council – perhaps the wording has changed in the handbook, but in my days in the bishopric the handbook read that name removal was not a substitute for a disciplinary council (paraphrased).
I view it as another thing that’s borrowed from corporate culture. You can retire or we’ll fire you. I think it’s all about the PR. Church leaders want them silenced or gone and them resigning would be the best outcome for the church with respect to PR. It doesn’t really matter what’s in the handbook.
I’ve looked for the news story on various Mormon corridor news reporting agencies that allow readers to comment. You don’t have to read many comments to get a general consensus as to why these people are facing disciplinary councils. Members have already judged these people and I think we already know what they’re all saying.
SilentDawning wrote:What I am about to ask is NOT a rhetorical question.
What distinguishes John and Kate Kelly from the disaaffected bloggers in the bloggernacle such as those of us at StayLDS? Is it that they are very vocal, have spoken to the press? Or is it that they intend to influence others to act or believe in ways that are not in alignment with traditional church thinking?
I think one aspect is the quantity of followers. Having your group lead protests/demonstrations on temple square during general conference doesn’t help. Heck, I’m sure that even just forming a group doesn’t help. I imagine that church leadership at the highest level feels like those people undermine their authority, that they have potential to disrupt the house of order that they are trying to maintain, and that excommunication will reestablish that order.
Earl Parsons wrote:I think the reason is that they are two high profile individuals that represent the disaffected. It’s mostly symbolic.
I don’t necessarily agree with John Dehlin or Kate Kelly, but I admire and appreciate their work.
In my opinion, whoever is behind these disciplinary councils has confused cause and effect. They see John Dehlin facilitating a discussion on doubt and think, “Look! John Dehlin has caused all these people to doubt the church.” Or they see Kate Kelly leading a group of dissatisfied women and think, “Look! Kate Kelly made all those women dissatisfied with the church.” But the doubts and dissatisfaction were already there. John Dehlin and Kate Kelly just gave them a voice. By all accounts their work has kept people with doubts and concerns in the church, not led them away from it.
Using the parable of the lost sheep, it’s like John Dehlin and Kate Kelly have gathered together a bunch of sheep who have wandered away when someone sees them and says, “Hey you! What are you doing with those sheep? Why are you leading them away from the flock?”
I hope that we as a people can learn from this experience and do better.
Well said.
SilentDawning wrote:What I am about to ask is NOT a rhetorical question.
What distinguishes John and Kate Kelly from the disaaffected bloggers in the bloggernacle such as those of us at StayLDS? Is it that they are very vocal, have spoken to the press? Or is it that they intend to influence others to act or believe in ways that are not in alignment with traditional church thinking?
Maybe I’m just being paranoid here? But I think that targeting Dehlin and Kelly, in part, was done to allow the Church to cast a wider net. By declaring Dehlin and Kelly apostates (and just for the record, I strongly disagree that their bishops – or the high ranking authorities who are actually pulling the strings – actually have the authority to declare anyone an apostate), now anyone who agrees with them is supporting an apostate group. I don’t know what kind of membership numbers OW and MS have, but I an sure they are in the hundreds if not thousands, cumulatively. And now
every single one of those peoplecan have his or her temple recommend revoked or be denied one in the future, for supporting and agreeing with faithful members of the Church who someone else decidedwas in apostasy. John Dehlin and Kate Kelly are the stones, but the ripples will be felt far and wide. Is this what we have come to? Are we not even pretending to be Christlike any more?
I have a TR interview coming up (long story there, actually) and I am strongly tempted to answer the “do you associate with any apostate groups” question with something along the lines of, “While I don’t agree with Ordain Women and am not no nor ever have been a member of OW, I find Kate Kelly’s treatment by the Church hierarchy to be morally reprehensible.” The TR interview question does rather draw a line in the sand, and I am no longer on the side of that line that I am *supposed* to be on. And if the bishopric member decides to withhold my recommend because of that, so be it. It’s not like the temple fosters a feeling of peace in me or a close relationship with my Heavenly Father.
Anyway, there are other aspects of this case that are putting me in a white-hot, blinding rage but I will try and articulate those thoughts once I have cooled down a little. It’s just that the ability of Dehlin and Kelly’s new-found status as apostates to deny TR’s to hundreds, if not thousands, of faithful Latter-Day Saints was an aspect that hadn’t occurred to me until now.
nibbler wrote:I think one aspect is the quantity of followers. Having your group lead protests/demonstrations on temple square during general conference doesn’t help. Heck, I’m sure that even just forming a group doesn’t help. I imagine that church leadership at the highest level feels like those people undermine their authority, that they have potential to disrupt the house of order that they are trying to maintain, and that excommunication will reestablish that order.
So John Dehlin formed this site along with Mormon Stories. Does that put us in the same boat as him as participants and possible followers of John Dehlin? Do we by our statements, some of which are not far off John’s, commit the same offense? Have you not given advice to questioners here Nibbler? While I understand that you did not start the site, I have read everything you ever wrote here (and on another site in which we both participate) and for the most part agree with it – am I a follower of you?
Joni wrote:SilentDawning wrote:What I am about to ask is NOT a rhetorical question.
What distinguishes John and Kate Kelly from the disaaffected bloggers in the bloggernacle such as those of us at StayLDS? Is it that they are very vocal, have spoken to the press? Or is it that they intend to influence others to act or believe in ways that are not in alignment with traditional church thinking?
Maybe I’m just being paranoid here? But I think that targeting Dehlin and Kelly, in part, was done to allow the Church to cast a wider net. By declaring Dehlin and Kelly apostates (and just for the record, I strongly disagree that their bishops – or the high ranking authorities who are actually pulling the strings – actually have the authority to declare anyone an apostate), now anyone who agrees with them is supporting an apostate group. I don’t know what kind of membership numbers OW and MS have, but I an sure they are in the hundreds if not thousands, cumulatively. And now
every single one of those peoplecan have his or her temple recommend revoked or be denied one in the future, for supporting and agreeing with faithful members of the Church who someone else decidedwas in apostasy. John Dehlin and Kate Kelly are the stones, but the ripples will be felt far and wide. I don’t know, Joni – is it this or are they just looking to cut off the head of the snake? Clearly some of us are already skittish with thoughts of “If it could happen to them, it could happen to me.” Do we then just straighten up and fly right? Is that the goal?
Beyond my own sadness and anger regarding this news, I am sickened in my soul for the message this sends to our young people, especially the girls. While most YW may not understand what OW was about other than what they had been told negatively at church, it at least let them see women advocating within the church system as a vocal group. Now YM and men in the church can use this excommunication to further justify their poor treatment of women. YM will see that women shouldn’t have a voice and the YW will see in black and white that unless they toe the line their thoughts, questions and concerns about their experience in the church are not welcomed and are grounds for removal. What a hopeless position this places women who are moderates in the church! Who perhaps do not want ordination, but want to change the inequality they see and experience. These actions leave no room for women to even question or ask for even small changes as rank and file members in wards will see any questioning as “apostate” now and will demand and punish for silence on matters affecting the women of the church. The message sent to the average church member was that when quietly patting women on the head and asking them to be silent and pretty doesn’t work…well we can make you shut up! As far as Dehlin, the same ammunition has been given to area priesthood leaders…. if you have question and doubts we can remove you if you make a unflattering point in gospel doctrine class.
The preisthood leadership roulette game we all play just got a whole lot more serious and real!
DarkJedi wrote:So John Dehlin formed this site along with Mormon Stories. Does that put us in the same boat as him as participants and possible followers of John Dehlin? Do we by our statements, some of which are not far off John’s, commit the same offense? Have you not given advice to questioners here Nibbler? While I understand that you did not start the site, I have read everything you ever wrote here (and on another site in which we both participate) and for the most part agree with it – am I a follower of you?
I’m going to be honest about my ignorance… I hadn’t even
heardof John Dehlin until I saw the thread “John Dehlin is leaving the building” http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5466http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5466” class=”bbcode_url”> I found the site and the name of the site was StayLDS, not “John Dehlin presents StayLDS.” It’s hard to say that members of StayLDS are his followers if one of the participating members of the site hadn’t even heard of him through the first 6 months of their membership and only then because they became a hot topic outside the context of the site. Sure, I operate in ignorance but there is very little about this site that steers people toward JD. The site isn’t about him, at least it isn’t for me. The site isn’t about any one person either, it’s more conceptual, and it’s hard to excommunicate a concept.
The church is taking action so it’s really about the perception of the leaders of the church. I believe that they perceive that JD has a following (whether he has one or not) and that the mere existence of any following is a threat that undermines their authority. He’s a leader with a face. Kill the leader, quash the movement. I have zero influence, at least in the eyes of church leaders. I suppose the church could come after me and send a similar message that the RIAA attempts to send in going after people’s grandmothers for downloading music. No one is safe. I don’t see them doing that, I do see them going after the high profile people though, having lots of “followers” helps you along the path to becoming high profile.
I like Earl Parsons’ analogy. Hey you! What are you doing with those sheep?
You know what else stinks about this? I’ve already heard comments made in church unfairly castigating the OW movement as “not understanding the priesthood” or “wanting men and women to be the same.” (Dismayingly, these comments always seem to come from women.) I’m sure that once the Evil Kate Kelly and her minions have been revealed for the sinful apostates that they are, the back-patting and smugness will ratchet up to a whole new nauseating level. It’s not necessarily about what you perceive, Nibbler, it may very well have much more to do with what your bishop and stake president perceive. Because you don’t see yourself as a follower of John Dehlin by participating here does not mean that they see it the same way. I do note that this site is not mentioned in the news stories, but if you Google John Dehlin, as I’m sure many TBMs have over the past few hours, you will find his association with StayLDS.
DarkJedi wrote:It’s not necessarily about what you perceive, Nibbler, it may very well have much more to do with what your bishop and stake president perceive. Because you don’t see yourself as a follower of John Dehlin by participating here does not mean that they see it the same way.
That’s true.
Still I think that this action has it’s roots in top leadership, meaning the peons would get a pass. Still it does set a precedent for local leadership, the peons become the low hanging fruit at the local level.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.