NYT article: John Dehlin & Kate Kelly face discipline

[Anonymous]

joni: Kate’s parents were also OW supporters. Sorry to say I’ve heard there are more letters going out. We’ll see.

[Anonymous]

Kcarp, I believe the church has said all it is going to say. I highly doubt there will be any letter to be read as that has not been past practice. Also, I would be careful what I say on facebook.

[Anonymous]

Here is the link to the radio interview with Kate and John today. You can really feel their spirits here:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogstribtalk/58056967-71/women-mormon-ordain-blogger.html.csp

[Anonymous]

I hope I don’t offend you all, but I’m going to offer my opinion, which differs from most of what I’ve read here.

I feel for Kate Kelly because my impression from reading news articles in the past is that she is sincerely doing what she thinks is right. I also just read her mission statement – http://ordainwomen.org/mission/ (wow, that’s pretty strongly worded, in my opinion).

However, in my opinion she does not understand the church or its doctrine very well. The church is a theocracy. Literally, this means “rule by God” and of course in practice it’s basically “follow the prophet.”

This lady has lead a very vocal and very public movement opposing a fundamental church doctrine and opposing clear teachings by church leaders. By definition, she is “standing apart” from the church, which is what “apostate” means in Greek, “standing apart.”

Please read the recent church announcement, “Church Responds to Church Discipline Questions,”

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-church-discipline-questions

This explains it pretty well I think.

I will just ask a rhetorical question. What would happen if the church leaders did nothing in cases like this? Soon there would be splinter groups everywhere. Certainly there would be a group advocating gay marriage. And eventually many other groups. There would be confusion and contention within and without the church. As you know, being a “house of order” is a key value in the church.

As I understand it, excommunication is actually an act of love. Being baptized and becoming a member mean you agree to follow the prophet, among other things. You agree that this is the actual church of Christ and He leads his church through a prophet. I firmly believe God wants us to use our minds and ask questions. However, if you oppose the prophet publicly and lead public opposition to him you are actively opposing Christ – you are saying you don’t believe Christ is directing this church. That is a foremost core doctrine of Mormonism. If you do this you are already outside the church, whether you realize it or not.

The reason excommunication is an act of love is that it removes you from a covenant that you are obviously not willing to keep, and thereby freeing you from the condemnation that results from being under the covenant but not living it. Personally, I don’t believe excommunication means you are “going to hell.” The Lord will judge your heart. (I may be wrong but I think excommunication in other churches means you are basically going to hell.)

Personally, I think if this lady had approached all this differently, she would not now be facing excommunication.

And she would have been more effective. She says she wants the priesthood, but ironically she is trying to force the leaders, which is the opposite of the doctrine of how the priesthood should work:

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” D&C 121: 41

(I’m not going to apologize for quoting scripture, because I think it is directly relevant. However, I am sorry if it offends anyone.)

Now, is the church open to input and willing to accept diverse views from its members. Yes, I think the leaders are. But it does seem to me it would be nice if there was a better venue for members to voice their opinions. If the leaders agree with me, maybe we’ll see something like that in the future.

Of course, this is all my opinion. I am not and have never been a leader or spokesperson for the church.

[Anonymous]

I often looked at D&C 121 as the main argument against OW. I admittedly haven’t researched the group or its actions but it always seemed like protesting to receive the priesthood would create a spirit where a person was unqualified to receive it. Taking it to extremes… for the sake of argument suppose the brethren extended the priesthood to women. One could make a case that the participants in the OW protests would still be ineligible to receive it due to the spirit by which they sought to obtain it.

—

The flip side of that coin is that in some ways the OW group are following in Abraham’s footsteps:

Abraham 1:2 wrote:

And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same.

It’s a group that is earnestly seeking out the priesthood. Contrast that with the more traditional (or cultural) impetus for conferring the priesthood, aging into it.

[parenthetical note]

Abraham chapter 1 probably provides the best scriptural case against OW than any other scriptures. Lots and lots of mention of the priesthood pertaining to the fathers and being passed from father to father.

—

I agree that excommunication is an act of love but I do think it has another “benefit” for the church, you allude to it yourself, it’s also an act to reinforce authority… and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

shoshin wrote:

The reason excommunication is an act of love is that it removes you from a covenant that you are obviously not willing to keep, and thereby freeing you from the condemnation that results from being under the covenant but not living it. Personally, I don’t believe excommunication means you are “going to hell.” The Lord will judge your heart. (I may be wrong but I think excommunication in other churches means you are basically going to hell.)

Correct me where I’m wrong but I think excommunication revokes the ordinances of baptism and the temple, the doctrine of the LDS church is that those things are required to get into the celestial kingdom, so excommunication could be viewed as basically going to hell (or lesser degree of glory, however hell is defined) if you are not reinstated into the church at some point. Opinions may differ, but that’s the position of the church insofar as I know.

shoshin wrote:

(I’m not going to apologize for quoting scripture, because I think it is directly relevant. However, I am sorry if it offends anyone.)

We quote scripture here all the time so feel free… and we even do it in positive and uplifting ways more often than not.

[Anonymous]

1) Excommunication is framed often as an act of love – and, in many cases, it truly is. In many, however, it is purely an act of separation and punishment.

2) What would happen if this is ignored? Since she isn’t trying to establish a splinter group, I don’t see how that would be the natural result.

3) I think she understands the Church and its doctrine quite well. I think that particular assertion is completely off base.

Please understand, shoshin, that I have said I understand the arguments for excommunication, even if I don’t want these two people to be excommunicated. However, I don’t like questioning someone’s understanding and, by extension, faith when everything I’ve seen indicates she actually does understand and actually does have faith. I can disagree with her about some things and not dismiss her as ignorant and faithless.

Also, just to say it clearly, quoting scripture here is NOT a problem. It happens regularly. Please understand that and try not to even imply it’s not acceptable to quote scripture here. We just try not to do it in a way that works in function like a hammer. Really, that is our only “restriction” in that regard.

[Anonymous]

I feel for where you’re coming from shoshin, and I don’t think you’ll disagree with the basis of the points I’m about to make, but I just wanted to voice my opinion.

shoshin wrote:

Being baptized and becoming a member mean you agree to follow the prophet, among other things.

Primarily, of course, our baptism means we commit to follow Jesus Christ.

shoshin wrote:

…if you oppose the prophet publicly and lead public opposition to him you are actively opposing Christ – you are saying you don’t believe Christ is directing this church.

I believe one of her main points was that president Hinkley said it would be possible for God to give priesthood to women. Not trying to argue her point here, just pointing out she is taking some “support” from a prophet.

I really don’t know enough about OW to have an informed opinion on whether or not her actions qualify as apostasy, but I do know it can be confusing trying to follow all prophetic direction exactly. Prophets have said conflicting things over time. For one we are encouraged to seek answers for ourselves, that can be one way to follow the prophet, but as I ponder and pray about the topic I feel that if women can pray and speak in our meetings, then maybe they could as effectively perform ordinances. I do get dumbfounded by why there is a big difference. I also think it takes a sincere asking before a revelation can be obtained. This realization came to me powerfully while reading the book on Spencer W. Kimball. Looking back on the priesthood ban we can see that the change was slow to come most likely because the expectations of the church membership/leadership were not fully compatible with all worthy men being priesthood eligible. The latest essay on LDS.org essentially says there was no good reason for the ban in the first place. Maybe the biggest reason Jesus didn’t have a woman apostle was because cultural conditions either wouldn’t have made it practical – or maybe the culture didn’t allow the proper recording of the fact that he did.

I don’t know, I am not an advocate of OW, but I am open to the possibility of change. As Joseph Smith said the Lord would reveal many wonderful things if only we were willing to accept it. I take the circumstances around the 1978 revelation as one example of that.

[Anonymous]

I want to reply, not to debate but because I want to be understood. It’s hard to explain myself sometimes.

First I want to thank those who have replied to me with respect. It’s much better than I expected, since my experience is with other internet forums who are obviously inferior to this one in their level of discourse and respect.

nibbler wrote:

The flip side of that coin is that in some ways the OW group are following in Abraham’s footsteps:

Abraham 1:2 wrote:

And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same.

It’s a group that is earnestly seeking out the priesthood. ….

This is one point where I think the OW folks are kind of getting it wrong. Women do have the priesthood in the church in many significant ways, especially if they have been to the temple. Although women are not top leaders of course – I’m not saying that.

Abraham 1:2 wrote:

Correct me where I’m wrong but I think excommunication revokes the ordinances of baptism and the temple, the doctrine of the LDS church is that those things are required to get into the celestial kingdom, so excommunication could be viewed as basically going to hell (or lesser degree of glory, however hell is defined) if you are not reinstated into the church at some point. Opinions may differ, but that’s the position of the church insofar as I know.

Yes, you are right. But, first of all, the door back into the church is always open. I know not everyone will be willing to accept the terms of re-entry. But it’s an option. My point was that excommunication carries a severely negative connotation, I think because of what it means in other churches. It’s not so severe in the Mormon church, although I realize it probably feels severe to some people, especially if they continue to misunderstand why they were excommunicated, which I think some do. Just because they feel persecuted and alienated doesn’t mean that’s reality.

Old-Timer wrote:

1) Excommunication is framed often as an act of love – and, in many cases, it truly is. In many, however, it is purely an act of separation and punishment.

2) What would happen if this is ignored? Since she isn’t trying to establish a splinter group, I don’t see how that would be the natural result.

3) I think she understands the Church and its doctrine quite well. I think that particular assertion is completely off base.

Please understand, shoshin, that I have said I understand the arguments for excommunication, even if I don’t want these two people to be excommunicated. However, I don’t like questioning someone’s understanding and, by extension, faith when everything I’ve seen indicates she actually does understand and actually does have faith. I can disagree with her about some things and not dismiss her as ignorant and faithless.

I’m no expert on excommunication. I’m just going by what I’ve gleaned over the years, and from things my dad said when he was a bishop and high counselor.

1) I personally don’t see excommunication as a punishment, even though some people may feel they were punished. Some actions are not included in what it means to be a member – publicly opposing the prophet is one of them. Nor is leading people against the prophet or leading people out of the church, intentional or not. People who mistakenly believe this is part of the gospel may feel their rights have been trampled on, I realize.

2) I agree it does not appear she was trying to splinter off. She was trying to force reform. But the leaders will never agree to what she wants. It’s against core doctrine. So her movement would have led to splintering or at least individuals leaving the church (this last thing will undoubtedly still happen). I personally will not be surprised, however, it a Reformed LDS Church results eventually, for people who want a Mormon-y church that is also politically correct and conforms to the philosophies of the world.

3) I guess you and me will have to disagree about her understanding. Of course only she knows her heart. But she has made her views public and part of a public movement, so I think it’s prudent to analyze what she says and understand her motives.

In my view, what she is asking for and how she went about trying to make it happen indicate to me a real lack of understanding of church doctrine, what the church is, and how it is governed. She seems to believe the church is like your local senator – if you get enough people in your movement, then a congressperson will have to listen and you can effect change. That is not how the church works. And priesthood for women – no, I can’t imagine that doctrine ever changing. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with women getting the priesthood. They already do have some of it and maybe don’t realize it, as I’ve said. But it has never been a doctrine of the church or found in any scripture. I can’t see it happening. How can she not see that?

I do hope she is not excommunicated. But I won’t miss the contention and chaos and confusion she has caused in the church.

I do fear for the consequences she may face – I’m talking about “karma” here. One of the problems with publishing your views publicly or being a leader of a movement is that I believe you will also feel consequences relating to how you have influenced all those people. If she ends up being the cause of people leaving the church then that will be a heavy thing for her to have on her soul. (For example, I think many Hollywood folks are going to really suffer in the next life for corrupting the spirits of billions of people with their movies.)

I am taking pains to harp on all this because I feel strongly that some members do not understand a key point behind this: Being a member of the church means following the prophet and submitting to God. We should not expect the church to be like a worldly organization. Of course, “you must follow the Dear Leader” sends cold chills into anyone who follows world history. But that’s where faith comes in – you are following God, not some blood-stained human dictator.

I absolutely do not believe God wants us to follow the prophet blindly. Nephi’s experience with being asked to kill Laban shows how you deal with a command from God that you don’t understand – you reason it out until you understand it, and ideally also you struggle with the Holy Spirit until you feel it’s right. Then you follow it.

Orson,

I see you have replied since I started my “second long novel” here.

I would like to see that quote by Pres. Hinckley about women maybe getting the priesthood. This is the first I have encountered it.

But is it Kelly’s place to lobby for it? I don’t think that’s appropriate.

Being a member means following Christ. This means following the current prophet, is how I see it.

[Anonymous]

Earl Parsons wrote:

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.

Beautifully said and it hits the nail on the head. In the midst of a crisis of faith it’s stuff like this that gives me moments of saying to myself there’s no way I can stay. Who knows what will happen in the long term, but if nothing else this was just a really counter-productive move. This is the day and age of the internet, information, and transparency. Some church leaders are trying to hold on to the old way of monopolizing the message but that just won’t fly anymore.

[Anonymous]

Yes, we love a good respectful discussion here. We rarely all agree about anything, but we try to practice respect while listening.

shoshin wrote:

I would like to see that quote by Pres. Hinckley about women maybe getting the priesthood. This is the first I have encountered it.

I saw it somewhere in all this stuff lately, it was either referenced in a newspaper article or on the OW site I think. KK’s mother I believe also alluded to it in her open letter. It was during one of GBH’s interviews, it is also worth noting he almost invited “agitation” on the topic — which really brings to mind the need to ask a question to invite a revelation. The model comes from section 89, “you must study it out in your mind” etc.

[Anonymous]

Shoshin – Here is the link from the President Hinckley interview, the quotes are quite a ways down. http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm

The quotes read as follows:

Quote:

RB: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?

GBH: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. There own ???. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.

Further down:

Quote:

RB: They all say that?

GBH: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

RB: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

GBH: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

And then:

Quote:

RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?

GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.

This is the genesis of Ordain Women’s efforts. He was the living, functioning prophet at the time – it’s hard to call their actions not following the prophet. Now for me, I am not an OW supporter or member, if I had been I would have lobbied for another way to begin the conversation.

[Anonymous]

shoshin:

Quote:

“She was trying to force reform. But the leaders will never agree to what she wants. It’s against core doctrine. So her movement would have led to splintering or at least individuals leaving the church (this last thing will undoubtedly still happen). I personally will not be surprised, however, it a Reformed LDS Church results eventually, for people who want a Mormon-y church that is also politically correct and conforms to the philosophies of the world.”

The church is already conforming to the philosophies of the Republican party in many cases, certainly among the membership, and I hear it often in the General Conference talks. Kate was absolutely not seeking a reformed Church (although John has talked about Reform Judaism fondly); she loves the church and was advocating for women to be able to serve equally and to be treated equally seriously. Their cases are completely different, IMO. Kate is a believer. She is faithful. She bore her testimony in her ward last F&T meeting. She informed her bishop in advance of every OW action to give him the chance to talk to her (and he didn’t). She has never had a faith crisis. Your statements that it’s against core doctrine for women to be ordained are not found in any definitive source, either scriptural or more recent. E. Oaks’ recent talk to clarify opens as many questions as it answers. Conservatives love to deride political correctness, but as far as I can tell, mingling your political convictions with your religious convictions looks the same whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; you’ll get it wrong.

[Anonymous]

I just read this and it echoes a quote Ray posted earlier this week (isn’t life prescient). These are the feelings of my heart this week.

http://www.kyleeshields.com/2014/06/an-open-letter-to-mormon-feminists.html

[Anonymous]

This topic brings to mind a recurring question that I have. Is it right to follow the current leadership even if the future word will be different? I’m actually kind of torn, my traditional upbringing tells me to not make waves.

For example was the person who spoke out against the priesthood restriction in the 50’s wrong at the time to oppose the current leadership – even though time has vindicated their point of view? Was Juanita Brooks wrong to tell the story that the church didn’t want told, even though today the church has validated her perspective? Was any other unapproved view wrong to state publicly at the time, even if we agree with that view today?

Of course we can’t know for sure what will be approved in the future, but if we could would that make a difference? …or is it our duty to remain loyal to current methods even if time will change them? Lester Bush’s article also comes to mind, he was given grief for it but I think a case can be made that it helped bring the seeking that led to the 1978 revelation. Was he following the spirit or kicking against the pricks?

[Anonymous]

I agree with Ray. It’s just not so simple.

But…I would say there are usually two options:

1) Love and support the church enough that one can vehemently disagree, but respect and sustain leaders enough to stop the protests or public statements on personal opinions to keep the peace, acknowledging love for the church and it’s unity is greater than personal opinion and then face discipline and stay in the church;

Or

2). Love the church but in one’s good conscience, be unable to rescind comments or stop progressing on public displays or comments that have been warned will lead to discipline and possible excommunication.

I don’t believe it is black and white, and right v wrong. It is just the world we live in and God lets his children play in the sandbox to figure things out which sometimes includes conflict he lets them resolve their way.

This is not new. There have been excommunications almost as long as there were baptisms in this restored church. There have been splinter groups always, and always will be.

JD and KK have choices. Leaders of the church have choices.

God will judge us all by our hearts and actions. In or out of the church.

God may see Kate is completely right and correct. And yet she may get ex’d.

There has always been paradox in the church.

Orson brings up a good point. “Is it right?”

We each determine that. How we choose to do it will determine who we become and how we are judged.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Author]

Posts