- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler wrote: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.
I do agree that it does not appear to be coincidence that these two came up for discipline at the same time (along with Rock Waterman possibly), but I am open to the idea that it may be coincidental (since I tend to be open to other points of view and possibilities). I don’t see it, however, as part of a larger “purge” of members who question or doubt. If you read John Dehlin’s latest statement on his webpage he does go beyond saying he questions or doubts – he outright states he does not believe. This could be semantics, in which case I believe it would be easy to clear things up with the SP, or it could be that he really has gone where most of us have not.
I think it’s sad that a church founded by someone who was questioning things, cracks down on those asking questions. Nibbler said:
Quote: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 agree. The way I see it, it’s about influence. I don’t think the church is worried about members anonymously posting on a site like this. They’re worried about members vocally, in a high profile way, “negatively” influencing church members. If my local leaders found out that I’m a member here and asked me about it, I’d just say that it’s a tool I’m using to work through some struggles I’m having. Honestly though, I can’t imagine it could ever be means for discipline.
We have a guy in our ward who is atheist/agnostic (I’m not sure which) and I think has even spoken to their groups, not against the church though. He continues to attend church for his family, like many of us here, but he never tries to influence members to his way of thinking. The SP is fully aware of this and it’s not a problem. I think if he started a movement to actively get LDS to become atheists, it would be a whole different story.
I am going to lay out some of what I think are the central issues in each case, with the explicit statement first that I hope neither Kate nor John is excommunicated. (Fwiw, I have no problem with Rock Waterman being excommunicated, for the exact same reason I had no problem with Denver Snuffer being excommunicated. I see both of them as firmly and obviously in the classic definition of apostate.) Nothing I am going to say is meant to suggest support of excommunication in either case, but I think it’s important to say right up front that, “It’s not that simple.”Both cases are complicated, and I think it’s important, at the very least, to recognize and acknowledge that.
John: I have said multiple times here that I love John and appreciate much of what he has done over the years – but I think it is really hard to say he hasn’t given public voice to MANY people who have ended up condemning the LDS Church and its leadership. I have been around long enough to see what has happened at some of the other sites he started – and in one case in particular it was really ugly. It quickly turned into a constant pit of negativity, with some really wild and fiery condemnations exchanged regularly. I participated a little at first, before it got really bad, but I had to leave after only a short time. There is a huge difference between saying you are trying to figure things out, build your own faith, find a way to be able to support and sustain leadership, etc. and saying you don’t believe any or most of the doctrine taught in the Church – and doing so publicly versus privately in a way that appears to encourage many others to reach the same conclusions. There is even a bigger difference when your public statement reaches many thousands and seems to encourage them to reject all or most of what the Church teaches. John has given a voice to many people who strive to stay, but he also had given voice to many people who have left – and then turned around and actively fought the LDS Church.
Finally, this had been building for a long time, and it has swayed back and forth with John’s own changing statements. I think the leaders believe they have been very patient and tried for a long time to work with John and let him work things out for himself. This one is incredibly messy and not simple at all.
Kate: Nothing appears to have been threatened during the General Conference protest issue – and saying it wasn’t a protest is pointless, imo. Gandhi and MLK, Jr. led respectful, non-violent marches, but they were protests, nonetheless. It appears that the action was initiated only after OW wrote six discussions to teach their beliefs and created their own version of the “I’m a Mormon” campaign– and made statements that most people see as saying they will not stop until women are ordained. Even if they would accept a “No” or “Not yet” answer if presented as an answer to prayer, their statements don’t read that way – so there is an apparently unyielding stance, coupled with multiple cases of mimicking Church actions that can be seen as being created in opposition to (or counterparts of) the LDS Church’s own efforts. In other words, the appearance / perception is of an organization that is modeling itself after and in opposition to the LDS Church – whether that was the OW intent or not – and doing so very publicly.
Again, I hope neither Kate nor John is excommunicated, but I can’t say it is surprising – and I absolutely don’t see either case as simple or straightforward. I see both cases as examples of the most difficult situations for anyone who accepts the viability of excommunication at all – and, as much as I want it to be very, very limited, I do support the concept itself.
Finally, my wife works in a job where she sees court decisions on a regular basis. There are certain days of the month when she knows multiple similar cases will be adjudicated and decisions made – no matter when those cases first reached the docket. There is no “coordination” going on at the judge level, except for the same date on the records for when the final decision was made. It’s a simple case of busy judges having to set aside a specific time to deal with specific types of rulings. The top leaders of the LDS Church (the ones who have to consider high-profile discipline decisions) are incredibly busy. I am positive there is a set schedule when they meet to discuss these things – and I am positive it isn’t very often. Thus, I am certain the three cases in question were referred up the chain at different times and then considered at the same time. What some are calling obvious coordination, based on the letters going out at the same time, looks to me like nothing more than a natural result of busy people getting together to consider high-profile situations. This happens on a regular basis, but it only looks suspicious to some people because it happens so rarely.
I think people need to be very careful saying that the Newsroom statement saying the decisions are not coordinated at Church HQ is disingenuous or even a lie, as I have read in some places, just because the letters went out at the same time. There is a very simple, reasonable explanation for the timing, no matter how anyone feels about the action itself.
I read through the letters posted by the SLTrib and have 2 thoughts or questions. For JD he’s being given the option of resigning or facing excommunication but the handbook used to be specific about a person not being allowed to resign their membership if they’d committed an offense worthy of excommunication. Second with KK she’s told in the letter she’s allowed to think what ever she wishes but a paragraph or so later she’s told she’ll be forgiven and the probation will be lifted when she changes her thinking.
The last that’s hard to understand is all the talk about love.
Old-Timer wrote:I am going to lay out some of what I think are the central issues in each case,
with the explicit statement first that I hope neither Kate nor John is excommunicated. (Fwiw, I have no problem with Rock Waterman being excommunicated, for the exact same reason I had no problem with Denver Snuffer being excommunicated. I see both of them as firmly and obviously in the classic definition of apostate.) Nothing I am going to say is meant to suggest support of excommunication in either case, but I think it’s important to say right up front that, “It’s not that simple.”Both cases are complicated, and I think it’s important, at the very least, to recognize and acknowledge that.
John: I have said multiple times here that I love John and appreciate much of what he has done over the years – but I think it is really hard to say he hasn’t given public voice to MANY people who have ended up condemning the LDS Church and its leadership. I have been around long enough to see what has happened at some of the other sites he started – and in one case in particular it was really ugly. It quickly turned into a constant pit of negativity, with some really wild and fiery condemnations exchanged regularly. I participated a little at first, before it got really bad, but I had to leave after only a short time. There is a huge difference between saying you are trying to figure things out, build your own faith, find a way to be able to support and sustain leadership, etc. and saying you don’t believe any or most of the doctrine taught in the Church – and doing so publicly versus privately in a way that appears to encourage many others to reach the same conclusions. There is even a bigger difference when your public statement reaches many thousands and seems to encourage them to reject all or most of what the Church teaches. John has given a voice to many people who strive to stay, but he also had given voice to many people who have left – and then turned around and actively fought the LDS Church.
Finally, this had been building for a long time, and it has swayed back and forth with John’s own changing statements. I think the leaders believe they have been very patient and tried for a long time to work with John and let him work things out for himself. This one is incredibly messy and not simple at all.
Kate: Nothing appears to have been threatened during the General Conference protest issue – and saying it wasn’t a protest is pointless, imo. Gandhi and MLK, Jr. led respectful, non-violent marches, but they were protests, nonetheless. It appears that the action was initiated only after OW wrote six discussions to teach their beliefs and created their own version of the “I’m a Mormon” campaign– and made statements that most people see as saying they will not stop until women are ordained. Even if they would accept a “No” or “Not yet” answer if presented as an answer to prayer, their statements don’t read that way – so there is an apparently unyielding stance, coupled with multiple cases of mimicking Church actions that can be seen as being created in opposition to (or counterparts of) the LDS Church’s own efforts. In other words, the appearance / perception is of an organization that is modeling itself after and in opposition to the LDS Church – whether that was the OW intent or not – and doing so very publicly.
Again, I hope neither Kate nor John is excommunicated, but I can’t say it is surprising – and I absolutely don’t see either case as simple or straightforward. I see both cases as examples of the most difficult situations for anyone who accepts the viability of excommunication at all – and, as much as I want it to be very, very limited, I do support the concept itself.
I appreciate this, Ray. As a member of bishoprics and as a high priest who lives in the stake’s home ward, I have been in quite a few disciplinary councils. Each case is totally unique and never have I been able to predict the outcome with any accuracy. Simply put, as you did, “It is not that simple.”
I agree Ray. And this does not surprise me in the least. I’m only surprised it has taken so long. I expect the church to do this. I suspect JD and KK did as well.
The simple fact is, the church is a much much smaller tent than most good mormon folks claim it is. Get use to it.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
It’s tough, for all involved. But the basics if the basics need to be considered before anything else. Quote:Here are the Fundamental Human Rights:
You have the right to be treated with respect.
You have the right to express your feelings, opinions and wants.
You have the right to set your own priorities.
You have the right to say “no” without feeling guilty.
You have the right to get what you pay for.
You have the right to have opinions different than others.
You have the right to take care of and protect yourself from being threatened physically, mentally or emotionally.
You have the right to create your own happy and healthy life.
These rights can not be taken by anyone in
The universe in any time or place unless you are non theologically hurting someone.
No business, no government, no family, no person, no society can ever take away these rights. So these have to always be considered without negotiation of these basic rights.
From there it gets complicated. But at least these are the simple non-negotiable rights everyone has.
I hope the right thing gets done for all involved without these basic rights being violated.
I pray for all involved with love and protection of everyone’s basic rights.
Joni, I can’t believe I didn’t think of that before, but I think you are totally right. By being a supporter if john dehlin or Kate, the temple recommend will be up for negotiation. Maybe it won’t. It’s a wait and kind if thing, but I think you are right.
I’m always late to church and miss announcement, but do you think this will be addressed in one of those letters from the first presidency ( to be read aloud at the pulpit by a bishopric member)?
Also, I’ve kind of made a stink if this thing on my FB and got a lot if intolerant responses with ppl bearing their testimonies bug no one addressing the real issue. Either way, I like that I don’t feel like I’m in the closet any more. I also like that ppl have shared their doubts with me and supported me. Many past ward members expressed they wished they knew while we were all in the same ward to discuss further (Pittsburgh ward). And ya know, there’s so etching to be said about eastern minds and being more liberal, even if they are originally Utahns
This is what the announcement of the probable ex communications has ked me to believe: that I too will not be welcome and should be wondering if my standing in the church is up for reconsideration
I am posting this from NOM Quote:Kate’s mom posted this on Facebook: (also,
both of Kate’s parents were released from their callings and had to turn in their temple recommends…) Quote:
OK Kate gave permission.
An Open letter for all who have ears to hear: My Amazing Daughter Kate Kelly
Jesus said “ASK and ye shall receive. Significantly, he did not say “ASK and ye shall be punished.”
#STANDWITHKATE
***
An open letter to all who have ears to hear:
From a very young age, Kate has been a bright spirit with a passion for life and for the gospel. At age three, Kate thought deeply about gospel principles. One day she asked me “Mom, if God created everything, who created God?” At that moment I knew that I had a great spirit entrusted to my care.
Kate has a deep love for the gospel and respect for church leaders. She served an honorable full time mission for the church and has been a great missionary for the church since that time. Just a short time ago, she gave a Book of Mormon to one of her law professors! She has been a dedicated church member all of her life, striving to obey the commandments every day, and never refusing any church calling or any request to serve the Lord in any way.
According to Marlin Jenson’s research, which was published in early 2012, church members and particularly young adults are leaving the church “in droves.” Not since the period of time in the church in 1837 with the failure of the Kirtland Banking Society has there been such a mass exodus in the church. About 70 per cent of those leaving cite gender inequality in the church as one of the reasons they have left.
Kate, troubled by this mass exodus from the church, wanted to reach out to those and others who feel that women are not given equal opportunities and equal leadership in the church. She and I have talked about President Hinckley’s statement in 1997 that God could change things and extend the priesthood to women, but he added that there was no “agitation” for that yet (President Hinckley’s word, not mine). Unless President Hinckley was lying, there is hope for the ordination of women. I believe he was telling the truth.
Kate started Ordain Women as a way to do just what President Hinckley said could change things. Many of the members of Ordain Women are members who would have otherwise left the church as part of that mass exodus Elder Jensen described. Others have been reactivated by their association with Kate and Ordain Women. One person had not been to church for years because of gender inequality and now is active and has a church calling.
When Kate approached me and told me what she was planning in early 2013, I asked if this would be an attack on the church, or if the group would belittle the church leaders in any way. “Mom, “ she said indignantly, “I’m doing this because I love the church!” I agreed to support her as long as the efforts of the group were respectful of the leaders and not just provide a platform to attack the church.
I have attended some of the activities of Ordain Women, and have heard Kate speak in many forums about women and the priesthood. I have also spent many hours speaking privately with Kate about this and other gospel topics. I have never once heard her speak one “apostate” word – she continually affirms the truth of the gospel, her respect for church leaders and her hope and faith that President Hinckley’s words will come true – and that God will indeed extend the priesthood to all worthy members.
Jesus commanded us to “ASK and ye shall receive.” Significantly, He did not say “ASK and ye shall be punished.”
It is my most sincere hope and prayer that you will see the good heart that Kate has and stand with her as she tries to strengthen the church.
Yours in the Gospel,
Donna Kelly Soutas
I respect that coming from her mother – and I mean no snark or disrespect at all by saying it that way. It is a difficult situation. I listened to the first part of JD’s recent Mormon Stories interview, at one point he references Margaret T’s illustration of a family in a crowded van going down the highway, the kids in the back are hot and they are asking the parents up front to blast the AC or open a window, but the parents don’t hear or don’t listen. The illustration is likened to church leaders “driving the van” while the membership in the back don’t have a real voice about what happens. The difficulty as I see it is the different realities between the leaders and some members such as JD and KK. While the “kids” in the back are asking for an open window or some kind of relief in their van, the reality of the leadership is they are flying an airplane at altitude and someone is asking to open a window! Each side can see the other as out of touch with their own version of “reality”, and I don’t know how primary differences can be settled without either or both sides altering how they fundamentally view things.
I understand why pilots of an airplane would seek to resolve a situation before someone tried to “depressurize” the cabin, even while I see the traveling family in another type of vehicle.
Kate Kelly’s parents were stripped of their TRs? Whaaaaaat? Is that standard practice, and what happened to man being punished for his own sins? I see the dichotomy as follows. 1) Organizations should be able to make their own rules and boundaries for membership.
2) People are born into the church and may have their entire lives (family, marriage, social standing, basis for going to heaven) tied up in it.
So it can be really challenging when the organization’s needs run couter the the individuals needs. This is escpecially true when the individual was following the dictates of their consience and appear to still be loyal to the organization.
I do not see this as anything new. Oliver Cowdery, John D. Lee, and that young man from Germany during WW2 are some few examples of this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.