NY Times: Dehlin and Kelly facing Excommunication [Archive] - Utahby5.com. Come for the Sports, Stay for the Community

UtahsMrSports

06-11-2014, 04:03 PM

What is TBM?

I'm not sure it's completely lose-lose, though I'm sure there are costs. Dehlin gets a certain amount of credibility from the fact that he is LDS. I can imagine people being confused by any of his stances or advice that are not in line with LDS doctrine. He will either stop preaching things counter to LDS doctrine, or he will have to preach them from a position of less trust and influence as an excommunicated member. Similarly for the ordain women founder. If excommunicated, her website loses some significance.

But the real point isn't strategy. The issue is that the LDS Church is an organization for those who share core beliefs. There is a ton of room for those who are struggling with those beliefs or even opposed to those beliefs, but there is no room for those who are openly teaching a different set of beliefs. Whether or not these two are in that latter category is for some poor high council to decide.

I think the Church has done alright with the ordain women movement. They did the prayer, and they broadcast the priesthood session. They have been rather accommodating. It was also clever to make them protest with the loonies in the protest circle. I think that is the main reason they are not planning to protest in person again. When these educated, faithful Mormon women looked around and saw that they were part of that group, they felt out of place. Just my conjecture - I don't even have anecdotal evidence on that.

Nailed it.

DrumNFeather

06-11-2014, 04:04 PM

I can thank this board for introducing me to him a number of months ago when someone posted some long retort to one of his somethings or other. He claims not to know his stake president; seems likely that he did not return to church activity, not that it matters at all here.
yeah, as of April's General Conference, he was out again.

He is a special case, IMO, because he has actually been given an audience with church leadership on multiple occasions and continues to maintain that the church doesn't care about him.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

Diehard Ute

06-11-2014, 04:07 PM

I don't know. If I started preaching things to the members in my ward that were counter to church doctrine, I'd get a letter too. It happens. These two just happen to be high profile, so it looks like a public statement.

The letter has to come from a local leader. It seems that this man does does not know any of his local leaders. He seemingly cares about being a Mormon, but he apparently is not actively engaged with his Mormon congregation. When my sister-in-law decided to leave the Church, she had a visit from her local bishop to make sure she really wanted her name removed. They didn't know each other at all.

Why not bring it in person?

Diehard Ute

06-11-2014, 04:11 PM

Maybe it should have been in person. I'm not sure either party thinks it was a big deal either way. In person does sound warmer, though.

I don't know. The Tribune's article seems to counter that.

I'm just a firm believer in doing things such as terminating someone (which this Is the religious version of) should always be handled in person.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58056757-78/kelly-mormon-lds-women.html.csp

UtahsMrSports

06-11-2014, 04:14 PM

Maybe it should have been in person. I'm not sure either party thinks it was a big deal either way. In person does sound warmer, though.

She is claiming on her website that she cant attend due to moving out of the area and they are conspiring against her. (Her story has a lot of holes)

Viking

06-11-2014, 04:23 PM

What a joke. That the Mormon church excommunicates is archaic and contrary to its message

There is no freewill in your church, ultimately.

Diehard Ute

06-11-2014, 04:26 PM

She is claiming on her website that she cant attend due to moving out of the area and they are conspiring against her. (Her story has a lot of holes)

She's in Utah and moving to Kenya with her husband per the Tribune, but that doesn't address the initial contact being via email

Sullyute

06-11-2014, 04:31 PM

What is TBM?

True believing mormon. I know that some people view this as a pejorative term, but I do not. I view it as a quick way to differentiate regular church-going mormons from cafeteria/new order mormons. I realize that not everyone falls into one of those two categories...

I'm not sure it's completely lose-lose, though I'm sure there are costs. Dehlin gets a certain amount of credibility from the fact that he is LDS. I can imagine people being confused by any of his stances or advice that are not in line with LDS doctrine. He will either stop preaching things counter to LDS doctrine, or he will have to preach them from a position of less trust and influence as an excommunicated member. Similarly for the ordain women founder. If excommunicated, her website loses some significance.

I will agree that their credibility was increased by their membership status, but at this point they stand on their own principals. In fact, I think that this move actually bolsters their cause by giving them essentially martyr status.

But the real point isn't strategy. The issue is that the LDS Church is an organization for those who share core beliefs. There is a ton of room for those who are struggling with those beliefs or even opposed to those beliefs, but there is no room for those who are openly teaching a different set of beliefs. Whether or not these two are in that latter category is for some poor high council to decide.

I think the outcome of those meetings have already been decided.

I think the Church has done alright with the ordain women movement. They did the prayer, and they broadcast the priesthood session. They have been rather accommodating.

The let women pray movement was before and separate from OW. The broadcasting of the priesthood session but not allowing women to fill empty seats in the meeting itself seems like a slap in the face to me. Going to the priesthood session was never about watching the session. It was about equality. The only steps the church has made is to print the nine auxiliary women leader's pictures next to the 100 or so men leader's pictures in the May Ensign centerfold.

We are each entitled to our differing view of how the church is reacting to the situation, but I find little progress on true equality in the church.

SeattleUte

06-11-2014, 05:47 PM

So as an outsider I ask, how does this help the LDS church?

It doesn't. The LDS Church thought it could bully them, and they went to he New York Times with their letters. Bad bet. Hubris is why it happened.

DrumNFeather

06-11-2014, 05:54 PM

It doesn't. The LDS Church thought it could bully them, and they went to he New York Times with their letters. Bad bet. Hubris is why it happened.
looks like by running to the media this time and other times, Dehlin and Kelly are making a similar bet.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

SeattleUte

06-11-2014, 06:03 PM

looks like by running to the media this time and other times, Dehlin and Kelly are making a similar bet.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

John and Kelly already won. There is no bad outcome here for them. I'm so jealous.

LA Ute

06-11-2014, 06:03 PM

Here are the rules from the Church Handbook of Instructions:

When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory

A disciplinary council must be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions....

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, “but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people” (3 Nephi 18:31 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/18.31?lang=eng#30); see also Mosiah 26:36 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/26.36?lang=eng#35)).

Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, excommunication or name removal may be necessary if formal membership in the other church is not ended after counseling and encouragement....

Notice and Scheduling

A presiding officer should not schedule a disciplinary council until (1) he has had adequate time to determine the relevant facts and (2) he and the transgressor and the aggrieved parties have had adequate time to give unhurried consideration to the consequences of the transgression.

The presiding officer gives a member written notice of a disciplinary council that will be held in his behalf. This notice is addressed to the member by his full name and is signed by the presiding officer. It states:

“The [stake presidency or bishopric] is considering formal disciplinary action in your behalf, including the possibility of disfellowshipment or excommunication, because you are reported to have [set forth the charge in general terms, such as ‘been in apostasy’ or ‘participated in conduct unbecoming a member of the Church,’ but do not give any details or evidence].

“You are invited to attend this disciplinary council to give your response and, if you wish, to provide witnesses and other evidence in your behalf.

“The disciplinary council will be held on [date and time] at [place].”

Two Melchizedek Priesthood holders deliver the notice to the member personally and privately with courtesy and dignity. The members who deliver the notice must give the clerk of the disciplinary council a signed statement certifying that the member was notified and describing how he was notified.

If the notice cannot be delivered in person, it may be sent by registered or certified mail, with a return receipt requested.

A member who is incarcerated when a council is to be held is notified as specified in the preceding paragraphs, with one exception: since he will not be able to attend, he is not invited. However, the letter should invite him to send evidence in his behalf, including a written response about the crime with which he has been charged and, if applicable, convicted. The letter may also invite him to tell how he feels about continued fellowship or membership in the Church.

So ideally the notice is served personally, but service by mail is OK. I wonder why that method was chosen here.

Diehard Ute

06-11-2014, 06:11 PM

Here are the rules from the Church Handbook of Instructions:

So ideally the notice is served personally, but service by mail is OK. I wonder why that method was chosen here.

One was served, supposedly, via email.

LA Ute

06-11-2014, 06:22 PM

One was served, supposedly, via email.

[insert shrug emoticon] Either they weren't reading the handbook or there was some reason they did it that way. Of course, only one side in these episodes is able to talk about the process, so we need to keep a few grains of salt around.

DrumNFeather

06-11-2014, 06:23 PM

John and Kelly already won. There is no bad outcome here for them. I'm so jealous.

It will be very interesting to see how this impacts their respective movements. For Dehlin, I have no doubt that he helped numerous people with his podcasts and othere ventures (though he did shut down the group gatherings for various reasons). He did say on his mostos page today that he made his own path to this outcome and he requires no pity, which means (at least to me) that he expected this outcome all along. A self fulfilling prophecy perhaps?

For Kelly, she becomes a symbol of her cause...and I suspect that the narrative will now be very different from that group than it was previously...and maybe, just maybe, a little more honest. (This is not to say that the motives of some weren't sincere, but I have to wonder if their mission statement doesn't change just a little bit.

I'm not sure either side should declare victory on this one just yet...this is just day 1.

Diehard Ute

06-11-2014, 06:24 PM

[insert shrug emoticon] Either they weren't reading the handbook or there was some reason they did it that way. Of course, only one side in these episodes is able to talk about the process, so we need to keep a few grains of salt around.

Certainly.

Given given the high profile nature of the cases it's just surprising to see things not handled with kid gloves IMO

Viking

06-11-2014, 06:28 PM

Certainly.

Given given the high profile nature of the cases it's just surprising to see things not handled with kid gloves IMO

My guess is Bednar. Seems like a first class asshole

DrumNFeather

06-11-2014, 06:34 PM

My guess is Bednar. Seems like a first class asshole

I have had some very personal experiences with him, and he helped me through a very difficult time and situation in my life. He had no reason to help me. He didin't know me at all. He stopped what he was doing, focused all of his attention and energy on me, and helped me.

In my experience, he is not what you describe.

LA Ute

06-11-2014, 06:37 PM

Certainly.

Given given the high profile nature of the cases it's just surprising to see things not handled with kid gloves IMO

Call me naive, but I tend to think that the top-level GAs don't reach down into the local level on things like this. I suspect that if they did, such matters might be handled a differently and might not happen at all. Just my speculative opinion.

Mormon Red Death

06-11-2014, 06:39 PM

Call me naive, but I tend to think that the top-level GAs don't reach down into the local level on things like this. I suspect that if they did, such matters might be handled a differently and might not happen at all. Just my speculative opinion.

You are naive. They don't get ex'ed without someone from the church office building requesting the situation.

Viking

06-11-2014, 07:04 PM

I have had some very personal experiences with him, and he helped me through a very difficult time and situation in my life. He had no reason to help me. He didin't know me at all. He stopped what he was doing, focused all of his attention and energy on me, and helped me.

In my experience, he is not what you describe.

I don't doubt that on a personal basis, anyone can be influential. However, he strikes me as packer, cubed.

I look at Mormonism generally and think, you can't possibly be a true believer, right? The body of evidence is so overwhelming that you simply have to suspend rational thought to be a true believer. Practicing out of habit/culture/utility? I 100% understand and endorse that.

But believe this nonsense? Come on...

Senioritis

06-11-2014, 07:19 PM

USS Utah

06-11-2014, 07:32 PM

Viking

06-11-2014, 07:45 PM

That attitude can only prevent you from understanding anything about me and my experience.

Meanwhile, Bednar and Packer are the a-holes. Yeah, right.

To each his own. But uncover your eyes and read. Learn. It is a fabrication. Feelings are emotion, not knowledge.

You think "you know" like I once thought "I knew". In reality, it was emotion, nothing more. The power of confirmation bias is overwhelming

USS Utah

06-11-2014, 07:50 PM

To each his own. But uncover your eyes and read. Learn. It is a fabrication. Feelings are emotion, not knowledge.

You think "you know" like I once thought "I knew". In reality, it was emotion, nothing more. The power of confirmation bias is overwhelming

I usually get in trouble when I make assumptions.

I apply much the same to my study of the gospel that I do to my study of history. People have commented that, regarding history, I work hard to get it right.

Rocker Ute

06-11-2014, 08:14 PM

I don't doubt that on a personal basis, anyone can be influential. However, he strikes me as packer, cubed.

I look at Mormonism generally and think, you can't possibly be a true believer, right? The body of evidence is so overwhelming that you simply have to suspend rational thought to be a true believer. Practicing out of habit/culture/utility? I 100% understand and endorse that.

But believe this nonsense? Come on...

I suppose it depends on what body of evidence you want to look at. I don't know if I've said it here before, but for some people they have a hard time reconciling the past, I have a hard time denying the present.

I find guys like Richard Bushman who remain very active LDS - I believe he is a Patriarch - which isn't a calling that you can really even do if you aren't a 'true believer', like a lot of other callings. That is a tough one to fake in my estimation. If there was a guy you'd expect to be a social Mormon or whatever because of his vast knowledge of the history of the church, it might be him... but he's not. I'd love to talk to him about that someday.

Sullyute

06-11-2014, 08:22 PM

To each his own. But uncover your eyes and read. Learn. It is a fabrication. Feelings are emotion, not knowledge.

You think "you know" like I once thought "I knew". In reality, it was emotion, nothing more. The power of confirmation bias is overwhelming

I love how you state each to their own and then proceed to denigrate his point of view. Believe what you want but don't tell someone else that they don't know. You have no idea on what they base their faith and religious belief. Poor form.

Viking

06-11-2014, 08:26 PM

I love how you state each to their own and then proceed to denigrate his point of view. Believe what you want but don't tell someone else that they don't know. You have no idea on what they base their faith and religious belief. Poor form.
Fair criticism. But faith is not knowledge.

My ultimiate criticism of Mormonism is the proclamation of knowledge, which is really belief, or faith. Very different.

SeattleUte

06-11-2014, 08:47 PM

I suppose it depends on what body of evidence you want to look at. I don't know if I've said it here before, but for some people they have a hard time reconciling the past, I have a hard time denying the present.

I find guys like Richard Bushman who remain very active LDS - I believe he is a Patriarch - which isn't a calling that you can really even do if you aren't a 'true believer', like a lot of other callings. That is a tough one to fake in my estimation. If there was a guy you'd expect to be a social Mormon or whatever because of his vast knowledge of the history of the church, it might be him... but he's not. I'd love to talk to him about that someday.

Richard Bushman is no hero to GAs or those Mormons with their outlook. The real target of this purge are progressive Mormons like Bushman and you. Kelly and Dehlin aren't apostates.

LA Ute

06-11-2014, 10:05 PM

You are naive. They don't get ex'ed without someone from the church office building requesting the situation.

I actually have a pretty good familiarity with how ward, stake, area and general authorities interact. I think you are dead wrong. But I will ask: do you have any basis for your statement?

This is the official church statement:

Church Responds to Church Discipline Questions

June 11, 2014

Mormon Newsroom (Utah)

"The Church is a family made up of millions of individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions. There is room for questions and we welcome sincere conversations. We hope those seeking answers will find them and happiness through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Sometimes members' actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.

"Actions to address a person's membership and standing in their congregation are convened after lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior. Ultimately, the door is always open for people to return to the Church."

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

I just don't see any reason to believe the authors of this statement are lying or dissembling.

Diehard Ute

06-11-2014, 11:32 PM

Diehard Ute

06-11-2014, 11:40 PM

Top down is generally accurate, but there's a lot of bottom up, sideways, and loopy loop stuff in the lds church. Just last Sunday, I had to teach, and part of the lesson was how an lds apostle still has to ask his bishops permission to baptize someone.

And I'm sure that's true, however it would be silly to think something like this, which everyone knows will be "big", doesn't get run "up the chain"

I'm sure the statement LA posted is generally the case, but I highly doubt it's a 100% thing

UteBeliever aka Port

06-12-2014, 12:28 AM

And I'm sure that's true, however it would be silly to think something like this, which everyone knows will be "big", doesn't get run "up the chain"

I'm sure the statement LA posted is generally the case, but I highly doubt it's a 100% thing

Also weird that both these individuals' ecclesiastical leaders on opposite ends of the country served them with notice of church action within 24 hours of one another, isn't it?

OrangeUte

06-12-2014, 01:30 AM

Also weird that both these individuals' ecclesiastical leaders on opposite ends of the country served them with notice of church action within 24 hours of one another, isn't it?

I wonder if there are more coming down the chute. Dehlin and Kelly are the two highest profiles out there but maybe the church leaders figure it's message time once again.

Viking

06-12-2014, 05:47 AM

Why does a religion need to police its members?

Mormon Red Death

06-12-2014, 06:38 AM

I actually have a pretty good familiarity with how ward, stake, area and general authorities interact. I think you are dead wrong. But I will ask: do you have any basis for your statement?

This is the official church statement:

I just don't see any reason to believe the authors of this statement are lying or dissembling.

So a church that is highly centralized. It also purports that is leaders are the authority in doctrine is going to let local leadership excommunicated high profile members over doctrine issues?

-keep in mind this is a church where if someone is excommunicated they can't have their blessings restored without getting the authority from salt lake.

The higher echelons on the church routinely send doctrinal and administrative letters to all is wards and control everything even what lessons are taught.

-They have a history of pushing down excommunication (see the Sept 6)

-if you are divorced and want to marry in the temple you have to get authorization from the president of the church.

If a 18 year old kid has sex and his local leaders don't think he should wait a year to go on a mission he still has to get permission from salt lake.

It seems very plausible that this church would abdicate its apostasy purging to local leaders 《rolls eyes》

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

execUTEioner

06-12-2014, 06:59 AM

I wonder if there are more coming down the chute. Dehlin and Kelly are the two highest profiles out there but maybe the church leaders figure it's message time once again.

I read elsewhere that Alan Rock Waterman received a church court summons as well over the weekend. This is way too coordinated to have originated at the local levels.

I'm secretly hoping for seven more so the great 2014 purge can be referred to as John and Kate plus eight.

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 07:11 AM

I love how you state each to their own and then proceed to denigrate his point of view. Believe what you want but don't tell someone else that they don't know. You have no idea on what they base their faith and religious belief. Poor form.

Thank you, Sully. I was going to post something similar.

Mormon Red Death

06-12-2014, 07:20 AM

Forgive my ignorance on this. Was that excommunication "pushed down"? Honest question - I know next to nothing about this.

Boyd k packer had a long running disagreement with Michael Quinn and he told his stake President to hold the court.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

execUTEioner

06-12-2014, 07:31 AM

I don't know who this is. Did he not take his letter to the Times?

He runs a blog called pure Mormonism. I'm not that familiar -- here's a brief explanation from a mosto podcast he was on.
http://mormonstories.org/rock-waterman-and-pure-mormonism/

He posted on a facebook group:

I just heard! And I can confirm that this purge is coming from the top leadership because my bishop delivered the ultimatum to me which he said came from an area Seventy. I have not mentioned it until now because I have not yet heard from my Stake President. (Like John, I have never met my SP either.) I was given the option to stop blogging or resign, otherwise face excommunication.
According to Church law, accusations must originate from a local member. I have a quote around here somewhere from Joseph Smith where he tells the Twelve they are not to interfere in local branches. But since when has the modern hierarchy ever considered the rules apply to them?

Applejack

06-12-2014, 07:52 AM

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 08:06 AM

I was reading a few non-Salt Lake articles about this and found this on nbcnews.com: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mormon-womens-group-founder-kate-kelly-faces-excommunication-n129151

It claims that the number of ex-communications in the church each year is "likely" between 10,000-20,000. That seems really, really high, doesn't it?

Yeesh. yeah, that seems too high to me.

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 08:17 AM

Applejack

06-12-2014, 08:17 AM

Media pay fast and loose with "likely's". How many times have we read that the Mormon church likely takes in 400 quintillion dollars weekly from tithing. Further analysis reveals the calculations of some sociologist who multiplies 15 million members by 10 percent of some average salary that he has made up.

On this one, how many wards are in the church? How many excommunications per ward would that be? What's the incarceration rate in various countries? Is it safe to assume most excommunications are the result of incarceration?

Back of envelope math: Let's say 10 million members. 10,000 exes per yr/10,000,000 members = 1 of of 1,000 members is exed ever year. Assume that each ward has about 500 members (on the books) and that's an average of an excommunication every other year in each ward. I guess that's not out-of-your-mind unlikely, but it still seems high.

Do you get automatically exed if you are incarcerated?

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 08:23 AM

Just to throw out a curveball here........

Is "Ordain Women" now on the list of groups that will cause you to fail a TR interview if you associate, affiliate, agree with blah blah blah?

I read the church's statement posted by LA Ute; and this whole thing makes me sad as well. This group reminds me of Martin Harris and the classic "Monkey and the Peanuts/Banana/Walnuts/however your sunday school teacher taught it"

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 08:24 AM

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 08:24 AM

Also weird that both these individuals' ecclesiastical leaders on opposite ends of the country served them with notice of church action within 24 hours of one another, isn't it?

I don't know anything about this other than what's been published, but yes, that is weird. If is is coordinated from SLC, it seems kinda dumb to do it that way from a PR standpoint. I just don't think the official statement is a lie. (I know Mike Otterson personally so I will admit my bias.) I also don't think Dehlin and Kelly are victims. They know what they are doing and they've always known the risks. Dehlin in particular is not a sympathetic figure in my opinion.

concerned

06-12-2014, 08:38 AM

Back of envelope math: Let's say 10 million members. 10,000 exes per yr/10,000,000 members = 1 of of 1,000 members is exed ever year. Assume that each ward has about 500 members (on the books) and that's an average of an excommunication every other year in each ward. I guess that's not out-of-your-mind unlikely, but it still seems high.

Do you get automatically exed if you are incarcerated?

People get excommunicated who aren't really in any ward, and you wouldn't know about.. We have a close friend, born and raised in rural Utah, went to BYU undgrad and on a mission. Went to columbia law shcool works in NY, came out as gay. Got legally married, and it was in the paper. Somebody in Utah saw it, notified his bishop in NY, and he was excommunicated, even though he hadnt been to church in a long while and I assume wasnt tithing. But he was devastated and has had a very hard time dealing with it, because it is in his blood and family.

Diehard Ute

06-12-2014, 08:43 AM

I don't know anything about this other than what's been published, but yes, that is weird. If is is coordinated from SLC, it seems kinda dumb to do it that way from a PR standpoint. I just don't think the official statement is a lie. (I know Mike Otterson personally so I will admit my bias.) I also don't think Dehlin and Kelly are victims. They know what they are doing and they've always known the risks. Dehlin in particular is not a sympathetic figure in my opinion.

Kate Kelly was just on Radio From Hell.

She certainly did not play a victim, but rather is upset with how this has come about.

Per Kate's interview

She moved from Virginia to Provo in the last few weeks. Kate said shed been in her Virginia ward for the past year. She said she'd never once had any discussions with her bishop regarding Ordain Women. He never questioned her, cautioned her or said anything to her about it.

Kate said she spoke with her bishop just before she left and he wished her a good move and said nothing more.

Kate said because of this she was shocked when she received the email from that same bishop advising her she would have a hearing in 3 weeks with either disfellowship or excommunication on the table.

Kate said the hearing is 3 weeks away in Virginia. She said her records have a "move hold" placed on them so she cannot do anything outside of her Virginia ward (I don't know how that stuff works so I'm just relaying what she said)

Kate said she cannot return for the hearing due to personal, financial and a family medical reason. Kate said she was offered the chance to submit a letter, and being an attorney she is preparing a brief on her own behalf.

She came across as very articulate and very passionate about her belief in Christ and the LDS church. She also said she's a bit surprised that this occurred after she left that ward, when they knew she would be unlikely to return and attend a hearing.

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 08:45 AM

In my understanding, no. Depends entirely on the crime.

Here's what I could find:

When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary

Serious Transgression

Formal Church discipline may be necessary for any member who commits a serious transgression. As used here, serious transgression is defined as a deliberate and major offense against morality. It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing.

Abortion

Presiding officers carefully review the circumstances of members who have been involved in abortions. Formal discipline may be necessary for members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, or encourage abortions. However, Church discipline should not be considered for members who were involved in an abortion before they were baptized or because (1) the pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest, (2) the life or health of the mother was in serious jeopardy, or (3) the fetus was known to have severe defects that would not allow the baby to survive beyond birth (see 17.3.1 (https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-1-stake-presidents-and-bishops/church-policies/17.3.1?lang=eng)). Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Transsexual Operation

Church leaders counsel against elective transsexual operations. If a member is contemplating such an operation, a presiding officer informs him of this counsel and advises him that the operation may be cause for formal Church discipline. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory

A disciplinary council must be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions.

Murder

As used here, murder refers to the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. It requires excommunication. It does not include police or military action in the line of duty. Abortion is not defined as murder for this purpose. If death was caused by carelessness or by defense of self or others, or if mitigating circumstances prevail (such as deficient mental capacity), the taking of a human life might not be defined as murder. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Incest

As used here, incest refers to sexual intercourse between a parent and a natural, adopted, or foster child or a stepchild. A grandparent is considered the same as a parent. Incest also refers to sexual intercourse between brothers and sisters. It almost always requires excommunication. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary. If a minor commits incest, the stake president contacts the Office of the First Presidency for direction.

Child Abuse

As used here, child abuse refers to a sexual offense against a child or physical abuse of a child. If priesthood leaders learn of or suspect child abuse, they follow the instructions in 17.3.2 (https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-1-stake-presidents-and-bishops/church-policies/17.3.2?lang=eng). If a minor abuses a child, the stake president contacts the Office of the First Presidency for direction.

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, “but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people” (3 Nephi 18:31 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/18.31?lang=eng#30); see also Mosiah 26:36 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/26.36?lang=eng#35)).

Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, excommunication or name removal may be necessary if formal membership in the other church is not ended after counseling and encouragement.

Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression while holding one of the following prominent Church positions: Area Seventy; temple, mission, or stake president; patriarch; or bishop (but not branch president). The term serious transgression is defined in 6.7.2 (https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-1-stake-presidents-and-bishops/church-discipline-and-name-removal/6.7.2?lang=eng).

Transgressor Who Is a Predator

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression that shows him to be a predator with tendencies that present any kind of serious threat to other persons.

Pattern of Serious Transgressions

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who demonstrates a pattern of serious transgressions, especially if prior transgressions have resulted in Church discipline.

Serious Transgression That Is Widely Known

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression (as defined in 6.7.2 (https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-1-stake-presidents-and-bishops/church-discipline-and-name-removal/6.7.2?lang=eng)) that is widely known.

DrumNFeather

06-12-2014, 09:06 AM

Kate Kelly was just on Radio From Hell.

She certainly did not play a victim, but rather is upset with how this has come about.

Per Kate's interview

She moved from Virginia to Provo in the last few weeks. Kate said shed been in her Virginia ward for the past year. She said she'd never once had any discussions with her bishop regarding Ordain Women. He never questioned her, cautioned her or said anything to her about it.

Kate said she spoke with her bishop just before she left and he wished her a good move and said nothing more.

Kate said because of this she was shocked when she received the email from that same bishop advising her she would have a hearing in 3 weeks with either disfellowship or excommunication on the table.

Kate said the hearing is 3 weeks away in Virginia. She said her records have a "move hold" placed on them so she cannot do anything outside of her Virginia ward (I don't know how that stuff works so I'm just relaying what she said)

Kate said she cannot return for the hearing due to personal, financial and a family medical reason. Kate said she was offered the chance to submit a letter, and being an attorney she is preparing a brief on her own behalf.

She came across as very articulate and very passionate about her belief in Christ and the LDS church. She also said she's a bit surprised that this occurred after she left that ward, when they knew she would be unlikely to return and attend a hearing.

On her site she claimed that her Bishop refused to send her records...anyone who has worked in the Clerk's office knows the Bishop has little involvement in that, and I think it is speculative on her part to use the word refuse on her site, so it is interesting that she's now using a more technical term. I suspect that the Bishop is being compelled by the stake pres on this one...so while her surprise may be warrented, I'm not confvinced we can firmly say that the bishop has nefarious intentions (yet).

Diehard Ute

06-12-2014, 09:08 AM

On her site she claimed that her Bishop refused to send her records...anyone who has worked in the Clerk's office knows the Bishop has little involvement in that, and I think it is speculative on her part to use the word refuse on her site, so it is interesting that she's now using a more technical term. I suspect that the Bishop is being compelled by the stake pres on this one...so while her surprise may be warrented, I'm not confvinced we can firmly say that the bishop has nefarious intentions (yet).

Maybe maybe not

She never accused the bishop of that, and also never said she knew it was coming from somewhere else.

She did say she found the timing of things to be odd.

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 09:10 AM

Kate Kelly was just on Radio From Hell.

She certainly did not play a victim, but rather is upset with how this has come about.

Per Kate's interview

She moved from Virginia to Provo in the last few weeks. Kate said shed been in her Virginia ward for the past year. She said she'd never once had any discussions with her bishop regarding Ordain Women. He never questioned her, cautioned her or said anything to her about it.

Kate said she spoke with her bishop just before she left and he wished her a good move and said nothing more.

Kate said because of this she was shocked when she received the email from that same bishop advising her she would have a hearing in 3 weeks with either disfellowship or excommunication on the table.

Kate said the hearing is 3 weeks away in Virginia. She said her records have a "move hold" placed on them so she cannot do anything outside of her Virginia ward (I don't know how that stuff works so I'm just relaying what she said)

Kate said she cannot return for the hearing due to personal, financial and a family medical reason. Kate said she was offered the chance to submit a letter, and being an attorney she is preparing a brief on her own behalf.

She came across as very articulate and very passionate about her belief in Christ and the LDS church. She also said she's a bit surprised that this occurred after she left that ward, when they knew she would be unlikely to return and attend a hearing.

We only have Kate's side of the story (she seems to be taking any and all requests to speak about this). And before I really comment on this, let me say that in general, if I disagree with someone, I am often quick to accuse them of being an attention hungry troll. I do not think that this is the case at all with KK. I believe that she is sincere in her efforts.

All that said, I have learned that in general, people who are disgruntled or upset over something have a tendency to stretch the truth. So I always take them with a grain of salt.

I do not believe for a second this tale of this letter coming out of nowhere. If it turns out I am wrong, ill own it. But she knew this was coming.

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 09:12 AM

Kate Kelly was just on Radio From Hell.

She came across as very articulate and very passionate about her belief in Christ and the LDS church.

I agree 100%. I love how she had not received any consternation from her bishop the whole time she has organized the OW movement. When she left the ward the bishop said that he had enjoyed her in the ward and wished her the best. Then as soon as she is gone he calls a church court. Definitely not coordinated from higher up. :rolleyes:

Diehard Ute

06-12-2014, 09:13 AM

We only have Kate's side of the story (she seems to be taking any and all requests to speak about this). And before I really comment on this, let me say that in general, if I disagree with someone, I am often quick to accuse them of being an attention hungry troll. I do not think that this is the case at all with KK. I believe that she is sincere in her efforts.

All that said, I have learned that in general, people who are disgruntled or upset over something have a tendency to stretch the truth. So I always take them with a grain of salt.

I do not believe for a second this tale of this letter coming out of nowhere. If it turns out I am wrong, ill own it. But she knew this was coming.

And while that may be true, you're basing that on nothing but speculation on your part (and I'd guess some hopefulness that your version is correct)

As for taking interviews, Radio From Hell is a very obvious place her to be interviewed, for anyone who knows that show.

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 09:20 AM

And while that may be true, you're basing that on nothing but speculation on your part (and I'd guess some hopefulness that your version is correct)

As for taking interviews, Radio From Hell is a very obvious place her to be interviewed, for anyone who knows that show.

Lol. I am not cheering for any outcome in this.

Nor am I just speculating aimlessly. If what she says is true, it would simply be unheard of to just summon someone to DC on grounds of apostasy with at least one warning and or attempt to get them back to the "strait and narrow" as we Mormons like to say. This is having some experience in DC hearings and from talking to people who have gone through them, as well as reading numerous accounts from those who have

DrumNFeather

06-12-2014, 09:20 AM

And while that may be true, you're basing that on nothing but speculation on your part (and I'd guess some hopefulness that your version is correct)

As for taking interviews, Radio From Hell is a very obvious place her to be interviewed, for anyone who knows that show.

The problem right now is that everyone is speculating...from OW to here to the parties involved, there is just a ton of speculation here (myself included) and I suspect there are a lot of ins and outs here that nobody really is aware of. (More speculation) I cannot imagine that this decision, no matter what level it was made on, was done willy nilly (as is being speculated in some circles).

Two Utes

06-12-2014, 10:04 AM

Maybe I'm completely up in the night, but I doubt this occurs if we are still under Gordon B. Hinckley's Leadership. I get the sense that Thomas S. Monson is slightly more of a hard-liner than was his predecessor. Not by much, but probably just enough to notice some subtleties.

And while it appears very doubtful, I hope we never get to witness a Boyd K. Packer First Presidency.

Monson isn't doing this. By in the know accounts, Monson is senile. And Boyd K P. is using all his effort just to breathe (although if they called a quorum he'd get on the line to vote to excommunicate) . Look deeper. Look at who is speaking on women's role in the Church these days. That would be Oaks. And I'm sure Bednar has something to do with it as well.

chrisrenrut

06-12-2014, 10:05 AM

On her site she claimed that her Bishop refused to send her records...anyone who has worked in the Clerk's office knows the Bishop has little involvement in that, and I think it is speculative on her part to use the word refuse on her site

Im currently a ward clerk, and bishops can request that a hold be placed on individual records so they can't be moved from the ward. We did this recently with a couple who was working on getting back into full fellowship, and moved right before it was all finalized.

DrumNFeather

06-12-2014, 10:12 AM

Im currently a ward clerk, and bishops can request that a hold be placed on individual records so they can't be moved from the ward. We did this recently with a couple who was working on getting back into full fellowship, and moved right before it was all finalized.

I've been in the same spot. My point was that the Bishop wasn't just doing this willy nilly, and this notion that he "refused" to do so (from the OW website) is a speculative stretch. Also, my point was just that he's not involved in every record that goes in and out which I think is asserted in the refusal claim.

chrisrenrut

06-12-2014, 10:25 AM

I've been in the same spot. My point was that the Bishop wasn't just doing this willy nilly, and this notion that he "refused" to do so (from the OW website) is a speculative stretch. Also, my point was just that he's not involved in every record that goes in and out which I think is asserted in the refusal claim.

Yeah. If it was him making the decision to hold the record and initiate the discipline and yet he treated her as she claims she did on the way out, then he is a spineless weasel. I think it's more likely that he was acting on orders from above. How high above is the question. Stake Prez, Area Prez, or SLC? We may never know.

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 10:39 AM

I'm telling you, every time I track any of these guesses down, there's always a sociologist at the end.

lol, now that is funny.

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 10:45 AM

Yeah. If it was him making the decision to hold the record and initiate the discipline and yet he treated her as she claims she did on the way out, then he is a spineless weasel. I think it's more likely that he was acting on orders from above. How high above is the question. Stake Prez, Area Prez, or SLC? We may never know.

All we can do is speculate. I'll do some now: It is easy to imagine a local leader (bishop or SP) going "up the line" with questions about how to handle thorny issues. That happens all the time. For example, a bishop asks his SP for advice all the time. SPs ask their area authority seventy for guidance on tough issues. I've seen letters go up to the Area Presidency with questions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. What we don't know in these cases is what direction the communications went and who initiated them. The timing of these does seem too close to be coincidental.

All this procedure aside, any church has the right to discipline its own members. Dehlin has been waiving a big red flag for years and is clearly a guy who loves drama, especially when it surrounds him. I've seen him in action. He's no martyr. Kelly, however, will be seen as a martyr by a great many people.

Diehard Ute

06-12-2014, 10:47 AM

In the SLtrib version, she was warned over a month ago by her stake president, who put her on some kind of informal probation. Is that's true, this claim of being blindsighted is off.

While she had a meeting on the 5th, The official confirmation of her "informal" probation was a May 22nd email from the stake president (which is on the Tribune website)

It mentions demonstrating things over a period of time. Now maybe I'm just operating on a different timeline than the LDS church, but 3 weeks seems to be a rather short period of time, especially when someone is moving across the country during that time. (And that was obviously known by those involved)

I am guessing there are many factors behind this, one of which is the fact that each individual stake likely handles things differently since the LDS church mostly is run via lay people, and thus each group is likely operating on their own interpretations of things.

One way or the other, the timing certainly seems suspect no matter which way you look at it.

Scratch

06-12-2014, 11:02 AM

Mormon Red Death

06-12-2014, 11:06 AM

Thanks.

Who is listening to podcasts? When does this listening happen? Do kids these days listen to podcasts? Is it all middle aged men? Do these listeners know about music?

Here's a guy who's not even part of his local branch, doesn't know his local leadership or maybe even his local membership. His blog, message, audience, etc have nothing to do with a local branch.

I listen to the Adam carolla podcast every day.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Diehard Ute

06-12-2014, 11:14 AM

Just a reminder that no one has been excommunicated yet, and it's not a foregone conclusion. The letters that are sent out have to say it's a possibility. While I think there's a good possibility they will be exed (especially Dehlin) it hasn't happened yet.

Ok, so humor the agnostic.

Is there really any chance they won't be, especially when at least one of them will only be represented via letter? If the subjects of these hearings do anything other than say "Yeah, I'm wrong" isn't it basically a done deal?

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 11:14 AM

Big winner in this story so far:

The Salt Lake Tribune.

Peggy Fletcher Stack lives for stories like this. As of right now, there are 2100+ comments and it has been front and center on their webpage today.

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 11:15 AM

Ok, so humor the agnostic.

Is there really any chance they won't be, especially when at least one of them will only be represented via letter? If the subjects of these hearings do anything other than say "Yeah, I'm wrong" isn't it basically a done deal?

Disfellowshipment is certainly a possibility. Disfellowshipment would be a more strong warning, but it would not be full removal from the church.

Viking

06-12-2014, 11:17 AM

I love this. I'd throw in Elder Anderson too. He spoke about women once. And Elder Eyring. Just don't trust him. Is this how we know Elder Packer was the man behind the 1993 group, or do we have something substantial on that one?

A member of my extended family was the ax man in 1993. I know the ins and outs of that sad event so this really pisses me off.

My wife is so upset she's resigning next week.

Diehard Ute

06-12-2014, 11:19 AM

Adding to the timeline (From the DNews), Kate left Virginia on May 10th, 5 days after meeting with her stake president and 12 days before the letter confirming she was on probation. She was served with her notice of the hearing a full month after moving.

NorthwestUteFan

06-12-2014, 11:19 AM

Boyd k packer had a long running disagreement with Michael Quinn and he told his stake President to hold the court.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

If Richard and Claudia Bushman, and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich were professors at byu in 1992 and not at Columbia and Harvard, respectively, perhaps today we would talk about the 'September Nine'.

Rock Waterman runs the puremormonism.blogspot.com web blog. His Bishop told him that the Area President/Regional Rep/Area 70 (whatever they are now called) has directed him to hold disciplinary hearings for Rock, and that he must either take down his website, resign from the church, or get excommunicated. Sancho can hate him because he represents Stanford and Northern California.

Kate Kelly as recently as last December was told in a meeting with her Bishop and Stake President that she is doing nothing wrong and has no need to fear going to a disciplinary council because they see no need for one. She moved away from Northern Virginia area to Provo, Utah, three weeks ago and will soon move to Kenya where her husband will continue his research. Her Bishop in Virginia, who told her she had nothing to worry about, refused to forward her records to her new Ward and seemingly waited until after she moved to issue the summons.

Note that, as a woman, Kate Kelly can be excommunicated by a bishop, while Dehlin and Waterman can only be excommunicated by a Stake President and the Stake High Council. Kate Kelly gets slapped on the way out the door by the very unequal structure she sought to change.

Dehlin is an interesting case. For years he has been a vocal supporter of those people going through a faith crisis. He posted his personal cell phone number on his Facebook page and would urge people to call him while he was driving to conferences, etc. He is a tireless advocate for LGTBQ individuals. He pushes to find ways for those of us who feel outside of the orthodoxy/culture to remain active and feel comfortable in the church. He plays a large role in me remaining active in the church (despite my unbelief), and I know I am not alone. Hundreds of thousands of people download his Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and other podcasts and thousands of others remain active in the church due to his StayLDS.org website and forum.

This shot across the bow is an obvious statement against anybody who dares openly question the church, its beliefs, its leaders, or its policies. Dallin H Oaks wasn't kidding when he said, "It is wrong to criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is correct". In the foundational days of the church, the First Law of the Gospel was "...faith in The Lord, Jesus Christ", as stated in the Fourth Article of Faith. Sadly this has been replaced by "The First Law of the Gospel is Obedience". This idea was floated by Bruce McConkie and was stated recentlt by Pres Monson (in his General Conference talk where he told the story about setting a field on fire).

What worries me about this situation is that it will give cover to a witch hunt. My wife emailed the Relief Society President an email, in confidence, detailing a list of her questions. I know for a fact that she was discussed in Ward Council. She received a reply from the RSP asking whether she could have the Bishop schedule an appointment with my wife to answer any questions. But will my wife end up incriminating herself somehow, or giving up information that they try to use against her? Will they tell her that she is an apostate and doesn't 'support the Brethren' because she strongly supports marriage equality and advocates for gender equality? Will they attempt to humiliate her and put her through an emotional wringer, just because they can?

The institutional church doesn't want the people on the fringe, or even those who want to have a healthy, open dialog about religion. They only want people who believe exactly the way they want them to believe, or else keep their mouths shut. Each of you bow your heads and say "Yes".

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 11:19 AM

Who is listening to podcasts? Is it all middle aged men?

I listen to the Adam carolla podcast every day.

Exhibit A.

Diehard Ute

06-12-2014, 11:22 AM

It's really their choice now. Kelley can say "I value my membership more than my website." Or she could say "that's it. I'm outta here." And there are 1,000 versions in between.

I think you mean her beliefs, not her website.

Mormon Red Death

06-12-2014, 11:25 AM

Exhibit A.

Hey I'm in my 30. That isn't middle aged

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

DrumNFeather

06-12-2014, 11:29 AM

Hey I'm in my 30. That isn't middle aged

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Especially if you're going to be an apostle some day.

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 11:32 AM

Ok, so humor the agnostic.

Is there really any chance they won't be, especially when at least one of them will only be represented via letter? If the subjects of these hearings do anything other than say "Yeah, I'm wrong" isn't it basically a done deal?

FWIW I've attended a number of LDS disciplinary councils. Offhand I can think of three where no action was taken, and several more where a lesser action than excommunication was taken. All of the people involved came back into full church activity, as far as I know. (There's one person I lost track of.)

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 11:36 AM

Kelley can say "I value my membership more than my website."

I think you mean her beliefs, not her website.

:clap:

The church is much more concerned with orthopraxy than they are with orthodoxy.

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 11:36 AM

If Richard and Claudia Bushman, and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich were professors at byu in 1992 and not at Columbia and Harvard, respectively, perhaps today we would talk about the 'September Nine'.

Rock Waterman runs the puremormonism.blogspot.com web blog. His Bishop told him that the Area President/Regional Rep/Area 70 (whatever they are now called) has directed him to hold disciplinary hearings for Rock, and that he must either take down his website, resign from the church, or get excommunicated. Sancho can hate him because he represents Stanford and Northern California.

Kate Kelly as recently as last December was told in a meeting with her Bishop and Stake President that she is doing nothing wrong and has no need to fear going to a disciplinary council because they see no need for one. She moved away from Northern Virginia area to Provo, Utah, three weeks ago and will soon move to Kenya where her husband will continue his research. Her Bishop in Virginia, who told her she had nothing to worry about, refused to forward her records to her new Ward and seemingly waited until after she moved to issue the summons.

Note that, as a woman, Kate Kelly can be excommunicated by a bishop, while Dehlin and Waterman can only be excommunicated by a Stake President and the Stake High Council. Kate Kelly gets slapped on the way out the door by the very unequal structure she sought to change.

Dehlin is an interesting case. For years he has been a vocal supporter of those people going through a faith crisis. He posted his personal cell phone number on his Facebook page and would urge people to call him while he was driving to conferences, etc. He is a tireless advocate for LGTBQ individuals. He pushes to find ways for those of us who feel outside of the orthodoxy/culture to remain active and feel comfortable in the church. He plays a large role in me remaining active in the church (despite my unbelief), and I know I am not alone. Hundreds of thousands of people download his Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and other podcasts and thousands of others remain active in the church due to his StayLDS.org website and forum.

This shot across the bow is an obvious statement against anybody who dares openly question the church, its beliefs, its leaders, or its policies. Dallin H Oaks wasn't kidding when he said, "It is wrong to criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is correct". In the foundational days of the church, the First Law of the Gospel was "...faith in The Lord, Jesus Christ", as stated in the Fourth Article of Faith. Sadly this has been replaced by "The First Law of the Gospel is Obedience". This idea was floated by Bruce McConkie and was stated recentlt by Pres Monson (in his General Conference talk where he told the story about setting a field on fire).

What worries me about this situation is that it will give cover to a witch hunt. My wife emailed the Relief Society President an email, in confidence, detailing a list of her questions. I know for a fact that she was discussed in Ward Council. She received a reply from the RSP asking whether she could have the Bishop schedule an appointment with my wife to answer any questions. But will my wife end up incriminating herself somehow, or giving up information that they try to use against her? Will they tell her that she is an apostate and doesn't 'support the Brethren' because she strongly supports marriage equality and advocates for gender equality? Will they attempt to humiliate her and put her through an emotional wringer, just because they can?

The institutional church doesn't want the people on the fringe, or even those who want to have a healthy, open dialog about religion. They only want people who believe exactly the way they want them to believe, or else keep their mouths shut. Each of you bow your heads and say "Yes".

Wowzers. Where to even start here?

First, there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims here. A woman can be ex'd by a bishop while a man has to go through the Stake Pres? Im gonna need a source.........

Second, there is a big difference in asking your leaders questions/bringing up concerns and blatantly starting demonstrations to change church policy and refusing to take no for an answer. There are not going to be excommunications due to people raising concerns and asking questions. If you have concerns/questions/change proposals, there are channels for addressing them. KK chose to disregard them all, began openly recruiting people to her cause and refused to stop.

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 11:40 AM

If Richard and Claudia Bushman, and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich were professors at byu in 1992 and not at Columbia and Harvard, respectively, perhaps today we would talk about the 'September Nine'.

I don't know Ulrich, but Bushman is a 100% faithful member of the church and a stake patriarch. So I am not so sure about your hypothesis.

Dehlin is an interesting case. For years he has been a vocal supporter of those people going through a faith crisis. He posted his personal cell phone number on his Facebook page and would urge people to call him while he was driving to conferences, etc. He is a tireless advocate for LGTBQ individuals. He pushes to find ways for those of us who feel outside of the orthodoxy/culture to remain active and feel comfortable in the church. He plays a large role in me remaining active in the church (despite my unbelief), and I know I am not alone. Hundreds of thousands of people download his Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and other podcasts and thousands of others remain active in the church due to his StayLDS.org website and forum.

He's actually been all over the map regarding his beliefs and his approach. I know that he has helped as many people out of the church as he has helped stay in (probably more). He describes himself as "administering to" people with doubts. He loves attention. He talked his way onto the Today Show to criticize Mitt Romney for being too cozy with Evangelical Christians during the 2008 election cycle, and stated he was representative of mainstream Mormon thinking on that issue. Again, he's pretty far from being a martyr. He seems more like a narcissist to me.

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 11:41 AM

I was about to do a power ranking of people named Rock, but I couldn't come up with anyone other than Rock Hudson.

1145

USS Utah

06-12-2014, 11:52 AM

By the way, I love Northern CA. My beef is only with the Cardinals.

And Rodin.

Viking

06-12-2014, 12:12 PM

Man, if i were Lebowski, I'd take CUF or whatever it's called into a private only format...that dude is running big risks if this turns into a witch hunt.

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 12:12 PM

I just looked up orthopraxy. That was new. I think I agree with you. Do you mean the church cares more about what we teach as doctrine than what we believe? Makes sense, right? A core tenet of the LDS faith is a "one faith, one church, one baptism". It's almost a defining characteristic. It can't be surprising that there are efforts to maintain uniformity in what is taught.

Orthopraxy is a term derived from modern Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) ὀρθοπραξία (orthopraxia) meaning "correct action/activity" or an emphasis on conduct, both ethical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical) and liturgical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical), as opposed to faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) or grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace) etc.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy#cite_note-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy#cite_note-3) This contrasts with orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy), which emphasizes correct belief, and ritualism (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ritualism), the use of rituals.

I realize that with millions of members that it is unrealistic for lay leadership to know the personal beliefs of each of their members (but I think the biennual temple recommend interview is part of that), however Jesus did exactly that. At his day, the people that he served, associated with, and loved were those that believed (or "help thou mine unbelief") but did not follow the liturgical rules set forth under Jehovah's religious leaders at the time. Jesus was the radical (the Kate Kelly, the John Dehlin, the Denver Snuffer, the Rock Waterman) that taught against those rigid religious rituals and taught equality, love, and compassion. Faith, hope, and charity are the great equalizers with God.

Viking

06-12-2014, 12:20 PM

I just read the Brian C. King letter to Dehlin.

Basically:

"Hey John. We love you. I haven't met you, but, I love you, man.

You don't want contact with the ward. Maybe one day you'll want to have your name removed? You'll go to hell, if so.

Say, speaking of going to hell, it might be a mighty fine idea to just go ahead and pull your name from the records of the church.

So...as I come to think about it...let's hold a church court. You have two options: resign or get booted. Either way, you're f---ed.

All the best to your family.

Love,

Brian C King"

My response to Lord King would be:

"Dear Mr. King,

Go f--k yourself.

J. Dehlin."

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 12:23 PM

I realize that with millions of members that it is unrealistic for lay leadership to know the personal beliefs of each of their members (but I think the biennual temple recommend interview is part of that), however Jesus did exactly that. At his day, the people that he served, associated with, and loved were those that believed (or "help thou mine unbelief") but did not follow the liturgical rules set forth under Jehovah's religious leaders at the time. Jesus was the radical (the Kate Kelly, the John Dehlin, the Denver Snuffer, the Rock Waterman) that taught against those rigid religious rituals and taught equality, love, and compassion. Faith, hope, and charity are the great equalizers with God.

You didnt really just put Kate Kelly up there with Jesus did you?

Also, according to LDS (and to a lesser extent Christianity as a whole) theology, Jesus came during a time of apostasy. Are we in a similar time of Apostasy?

Viking

06-12-2014, 12:27 PM

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 12:39 PM

Apostasy from what? An ever moving target of doctrine and you are required to blindly and, without questioning, believe?

If the Mormon Church were a form of government, many would declare it a totalitarian regime in need of liberation by US force.

It has to be veritable to be apostasy. It is not true. Period.

Yawn..........your trolling this discussion and making it into a "Mormonism is not true!" ax grinding session is growing more boring by the post.

Viking

06-12-2014, 12:46 PM

Yawn..........your trolling this discussion and making it into a "Mormonism is not true!" ax grinding session is growing more boring by the post.

OK. I've just gotten to the point where i disrespect one's intelligence entirely if they claim to KNOW the mormon church is the only true church. That claim is incontrovertibly false.

Belief/faith/tradition/culture/heritage...that I understand. Claiming to know? Come on...

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 01:00 PM

You didnt really just put Kate Kelly up there with Jesus did you?

Also, according to LDS (and to a lesser extent Christianity as a whole) theology, Jesus came during a time of apostasy. Are we in a similar time of Apostasy?

I am saying that they are/were considered radicals of their time. I am not saying that the Church is in Apostasy (capital A), but I am saying that the focus on wealth, outward appearances, and unwillingness to address equality seems to have similarities.

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 01:09 PM

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 01:12 PM

I am saying that they are/were considered radicals of their time. I am not saying that the Church is in Apostasy (capital A), but I am saying that the focus on wealth, outward appearances, and unwillingness to address equality seems to have similarities.

If the church is led by prophets, isn't "the Lord's will" more important than an ultimately arbitrary ideal like "equality". (arbitrary in the sense that there are just inherent differences......under such equality, will the young women of my home ward awake at 5 am each morning when it snows to shovel the driveways of the 40-50 elderly families? Will the Elders Quorum be responsible for bringing meals to those who need them? LOL!!!)

DrumNFeather

06-12-2014, 01:48 PM

Here's their interviews with Tribtalk today: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogstribtalk/58056967-71/women-mormon-ordain-blogger.html.csp

NorthwestUteFan

06-12-2014, 01:49 PM

MrUtahsports,
I don't have the Church Handbook of Instructions in front of me, but suffice to say that only a Stake President along with the full high council can excommunicate a Melchizedek priesthood holder, while a non-priesthood holder (a woman, for example) can be exed by a bishops council. LA can confirm this.

KAte Kelly's entire movement was about respectfully requesting the Prophet of the Lord to inquire of The Lord whether the time was right for women to be ordained.* If they wanted to head this off early and come off smelling like a rose all they had to do was say, "We met together last Tuesday to pray and asked this question of the Lord, and this is not the right time". Instead they attacked the messenger and sent the letters she wrote to GAs back to her Bishop and SP, unopened.

Sancho,
John Dehlin tried to get the church to be more open about its history and glaringly apparent issues, snd to be more supportive of people who do not fit the mold, but it chooses instead to ignore them. He did not create the issues. People learn these issues through life experience, by reading the Scriptures and old church books (prior to correlation), through Google, etc.

LA, Richard Bushman himself speculated that he would have been included in the byu purge. Ironically I think he said that in his Mormon Stories interview. In 1992 he was still working on Rough Stone Rolling, and of course Packer had issues with "truths that are not useful".

*I actually disagree with KK and the OW 'protest' tactics, but recognize that they had no other way yo get their voices heard. Women cannot EVER be ordained to the priesthood without first making fundamental changes to the temple endowment and and sealing ceremonies. (Next time you go pay close attention to the words of the womens' oaths. They are put in a position where their husband is permanently situated between herself and God, and they are to become "...queens and priestesses to their husbands..." while the men become "...priests unto God.". Women therefore can ONLY hold the priesthood of their husband (after he becomes a god himself), and can never hold the priesthood of God). Joseph Smith couldn't set up Celestial Marriage to make women equal to men, and still justify polygamy.

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 02:03 PM

Here's their interviews with Tribtalk today: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogstribtalk/58056967-71/women-mormon-ordain-blogger.html.csp

This was a great interview. I highly recommend taking a few minutes to listen.

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 02:07 PM

If the church is led by prophets, isn't "the Lord's will" more important than an ultimately arbitrary ideal like "equality". (arbitrary in the sense that there are just inherent differences......under such equality, will the young women of my home ward awake at 5 am each morning when it snows to shovel the driveways of the 40-50 elderly families? Will the Elders Quorum be responsible for bringing meals to those who need them? LOL!!!)

History has proven that the "Lord's Will" ebbs and flows with the culture and society of those seeking it.

UtahsMrSports

06-12-2014, 02:29 PM

History has proven that the "Lord's Will" ebbs and flows with the culture and society of those seeking it.

History has shown that repeatedly asking the Lord for what you want can either be great (1978) or it can blow up in your face (Martin Harris). Both the church leadership and the OW group have claimed to have sought the Lord's will in this matter and both have come to very different conclusions. Either the Lord gives conflicting insight or one of the two is not getting their "revelation" from the correct source.

My question is (and then I am going to politely step out of this discussion as we have just about jumped the shark here):

If OW is correct, and it is the Lord's will that there is an "equality" in the Priesthood, then why are they trying to gather a force to protest all the time and cause a scene? If they believe the Prophet's are who they say they are, won't the Lord eventually reveal his will regarding this in time? Why not just pray to understand His will and have faith knowing that the Lord is in control?

I think that this group has a tremendous misunderstanding of the Priesthood and quite frankly, the beautiful plan of salvation. And it is sad to me. I sincerely pray that KK and others will proverbially let go of the peanut/banana/walnut and continue to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel.

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 02:56 PM

OK. I've just gotten to the point where i disrespect one's intelligence entirely if they claim to KNOW the mormon church is the only true church. That claim is incontrovertibly false.

Belief/faith/tradition/culture/heritage...that I understand. Claiming to know? Come on...

The problem, Viking, is in the definition of "know." People end up talking past each other on that issue because they mean something different when they use that word. This is not a Mormon thing. Job said "I know that my redeemer liveth." Jesus said "Ye shall know the truth." Moroni said "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." That's the kind of "knowing" we are talking about. I think it is pretty common terminology among Christian believers. I always resist any effort to force the defnition of "know" into the one used in the scientific method, because that's a very narrow one. Besides, this all invites an epistemological discussion about how we really know anything.

DrumNFeather

06-12-2014, 02:59 PM

The problem, Viking, is in the definition of "know." People end up talking past each other on that issue because they mean something different when they use that word.

We had someone get up in our ward and make note of the fact that they did not know, but believed. Someone else got up (much, much older - different generation older) and say that this person need not worry about not knowing, because she knew for a fact etc...etc...It's one of those odd traditions that we have in the church. I wonder how much you'd hear it if not for testimony meeting.

DrumNFeather

06-12-2014, 03:01 PM

This was a great interview. I highly recommend taking a few minutes to listen.

The statements that each of them made about people not leaving because of them were very important, I think. The more I hear each of them speak, the more I wish they would've taken a day or two, met with some advisors or close friends or something, and come up with some kind of strategy for how to handle this whole situation. I understand that in this day an age, that's nearly impossible, but I think they would've benefited from waiting a day or two to see the groundswell of support and gone from there.

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 03:36 PM

This might be useful to those interested:

Why Church Discipline? (http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/06/12/why-church-discipline/)

It's mainly a collection of resources.

I hope that the outcome of the process is not disciplinary action (disfellowshipment, excommunication).

wally

06-12-2014, 04:20 PM

I figured that I might as well weigh in on this, as I have been inundated by board mail from folks who want my take on it all. I also assume that as soon as I opine you will all want go out and link my take to the various other message boards you all participate on, but please consider just cutting and pasting my words so that we don't crash the site.

Here we go:

I really don't care so much about this issue.

--You are welcome.

Two Utes

06-12-2014, 04:32 PM

I realize that with millions of members that it is unrealistic for lay leadership to know the personal beliefs of each of their members (but I think the biennual temple recommend interview is part of that), however Jesus did exactly that. At his day, the people that he served, associated with, and loved were those that believed (or "help thou mine unbelief") but did not follow the liturgical rules set forth under Jehovah's religious leaders at the time. Jesus was the radical (the Kate Kelly, the John Dehlin, the Denver Snuffer, the Rock Waterman) that taught against those rigid religious rituals and taught equality, love, and compassion. Faith, hope, and charity are the great equalizers with God.

Denver Snuffer? His problem is he thinks he talks to god. C'mon now, don't lump him in there. He should stick to being a lawyer.

Viking

06-12-2014, 04:41 PM

This affair feels evil to us. Going after parents? Sheesh...

I am such a fan of my heritage...my great great grandmother was in the martin and Willey handcart company. I genuinely appreciate my Mormon upbringing. Why does the church persecute ITS OWN???!!!

My family did not walk across the plains and suffer idniginty for this

OrangeUte

06-12-2014, 04:45 PM

History has shown that repeatedly asking the Lord for what you want can either be great (1978) or it can blow up in your face (Martin Harris). Both the church leadership and the OW group have claimed to have sought the Lord's will in this matter and both have come to very different conclusions. Either the Lord gives conflicting insight or one of the two is not getting their "revelation" from the correct source.

My question is (and then I am going to politely step out of this discussion as we have just about jumped the shark here):

If OW is correct, and it is the Lord's will that there is an "equality" in the Priesthood, then why are they trying to gather a force to protest all the time and cause a scene? If they believe the Prophet's are who they say they are, won't the Lord eventually reveal his will regarding this in time? Why not just pray to understand His will and have faith knowing that the Lord is in control?

I think that this group has a tremendous misunderstanding of the Priesthood and quite frankly, the beautiful plan of salvation. And it is sad to me. I sincerely pray that KK and others will proverbially let go of the peanut/banana/walnut and continue to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel.

I don't know you so if I'm misreading your comments, I apologize...

Your condescending lines and responses and self righteous air are exactly what make being a member of the Church difficult for the people that Dehlin and Kelly are like. The take it or leave it attitude and small tented idealistic church you seem to be advocating is not the Church that I know or want.

"I sincerely pray that KK and Dehlin will learn to toe the line and be more like me - I am wonderful afterall..." I'm pretty sure that's how your prayer above actually translates. Can I get you a rameumpton?

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 04:51 PM

History has shown that repeatedly asking the Lord for what you want can either be great (1978) or it can blow up in your face (Martin Harris). Both the church leadership and the OW group have claimed to have sought the Lord's will in this matter and both have come to very different conclusions. Either the Lord gives conflicting insight or one of the two is not getting their "revelation" from the correct source.

I don't think that it is an either/or situation. Although we believe God is perfect, he still has to work through imperfect beings. Trying to interpret the Spirit or revelation can be very difficult. It can come as a burning in the bosom; a feeling of peace, love, or calmness; forgetfulness (of bad decisions); thoughts in our head; visions and dreams; strong emotions; etc. It is a little different for each of us and can change throughout our lives. Since God communicates to us in arguably obtuse ways, it is probably expected that we may interpret or misinterpret those feelings as something it may or may not actually be. Leaders of the church are not exempt from these mistakes or misinterpretations. So I could see where both parties have prayed and both interpreted their answer in the affirmative of their beliefs.

My question is (and then I am going to politely step out of this discussion as we have just about jumped the shark here):

If OW is correct, and it is the Lord's will that there is an "equality" in the Priesthood, then why are they trying to gather a force to protest all the time and cause a scene? If they believe the Prophet's are who they say they are, won't the Lord eventually reveal his will regarding this in time? Why not just pray to understand His will and have faith knowing that the Lord is in control?

I cannot speak for OW specifically but I suspect that they feel that they are doing what president Hinckley said to do, which is agitate faithfully for change. Many changes in the church have come from the bottom up (temple ritual and garment changes come to mind). I think that this is also a different generation. Women have so much more opportunity and responsibility in regular society that it is difficult for them when they see the perceived inequality in the church they love.

I sincerely pray that KK and others will proverbially let go of the peanut/banana/walnut and continue to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel.

I agree with you here. ;)

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 05:06 PM

______________? His problem is he thinks he talks to god. He should stick to being a ____________.

This could be a fun game. Let me try... Tom Monson and Newpaper Editor. Dallin Oaks and Judge. Jesus and Carpenter.

*I have to admit that I don't know much about Denver Snuffer other than he claims to have talked to Jesus and was excommunicated last fall. So you may actually be correct on that one.

USS Utah

06-12-2014, 05:19 PM

The problem, Viking, is in the definition of "know." People end up talking past each other on that issue because they mean something different when they use that word. This is not a Mormon thing. Job said "I know that my redeemer liveth." Jesus said "Ye shall know the truth." Moroni said "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." That's the kind of "knowing" we are talking about. I think it is pretty common terminology among Christian believers. I always resist any effort to force the defnition of "know" into the one used in the scientific method, because that's a very narrow one. Besides, this all invites an epistemological discussion about how we really know anything.

The fundamental question, it seems to me, is "can humans receive knowledge from God?" Are men and women capable of having truth revealed to them? Surely God, a universal being with all knowledge and all power, has the capability to give knowledge. To place an obstacle before such a universal being would be a contradiction, and would prove error.

From my own experience, I think I can answer positively that we can receive knowledge from God. The constraint is that, having received that knowledge from God, I cannot give it to another. I believe that I have received countless witnesses from God regarding certain truths. It is a very personal thing, and not something I can pass along to someone else. Others will call it simple emotion and reject it, that is their right, but they cannot take it from me.

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 05:20 PM

I don't know you so if I'm misreading your comments, I apologize...

Your condescending lines and responses and self righteous air are exactly what make being a member of the Church difficult for the people that Dehlin and Kelly are like. The take it or leave it attitude and small tented idealistic church you seem to be advocating is not the Church that I know or want.

"I sincerely pray that KK and Dehlin will learn to toe the line and be more like me - I am wonderful afterall..." I'm pretty sure that's how your prayer above actually translates. Can I get you a rameumpton?

I am not sure if MrSports will comment as he said he was bowing out, but I don't think he is being condescending, or at least is not trying to be. I think he is trying to understand their motivation and sharing his perspective. At least that is how I am taking it.

I like hearing MrSports, Sancho, LA Ute, etc., take on things as it is generally different from my own and helps me not get too lost in the echo chamber.

Sullyute

06-12-2014, 05:24 PM

The fundamental question, it seems to me, is "can humans receive knowledge from God?" Are men and women capable of having truth revealed to them? Surely God, a universal being with all knowledge and all power, has the capability to give knowledge. To place an obstacle before such a universal being would be a contradiction, and would prove error.

From my own experience, I think I can answer positively that we can receive knowledge from God. The constraint is that, having received that knowledge from God, I cannot give it to another. I believe that I have received countless witnesses from God regarding certain truths. It is a very personal thing, and not something I can pass along to someone else. Others will call it simple emotion and reject it, that is their right, but they cannot take it from me.

+1 Well said.

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 05:26 PM

Viking

06-12-2014, 05:26 PM

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 05:27 PM

I like hearing MrSports, Sancho, LA Ute, etc., take on things as it is generally different from my own and helps me not get too lost in the echo chamber.

That works both ways! For me it does, anyway. Different viewpoints keep me on my toes and add to my own understanding.

LA Ute

06-12-2014, 05:27 PM

Experience is knowledge. Faith is not

You're wrong about this. I just know it! ;)

USS Utah

06-12-2014, 05:30 PM

Experience is knowledge. Faith is not

So if, over time, I have experience with spiritual things, with receiving witnesses from God, that would be knowledge.

For the record, I don't believe in blind faith. I believe in going straight to the source of all truth, God, with any questions I might have.

Viking

06-12-2014, 05:34 PM

You're wrong about this. I just know it! ;)

I have to say, you're the Mormon on the internet I respect most!

Scratch

06-12-2014, 05:53 PM

Experience is knowledge. Faith is not

Although there are countless studies and examples of someone having an experience and understanding it incorrectly or otherwise perceiving it in a way that didn't really happen. This goes to the point raised by (I think) Sancho who pointed out that there really isn't such a thing as truly perfect and infallible "knowledge." It's a spectrum but there's nothing at the far end. This is why it's difficult to criticize someone for using the term. Sure, "knowledge" based on something experienced clearly by the 5 senses only moments before is further along the spectrum than testimony meeting "knowledge," but that doesn't mean it's perfect and invalidates the other use of the term.

UtahsMrSports

06-13-2014, 07:18 AM

I am not sure if MrSports will comment as he said he was bowing out, but I don't think he is being condescending, or at least is not trying to be. I think he is trying to understand their motivation and sharing his perspective. At least that is how I am taking it.

I like hearing MrSports, Sancho, LA Ute, etc., take on things as it is generally different from my own and helps me not get too lost in the echo chamber.

Much appreciated, Sully, and same to you!

UtahsMrSports

06-13-2014, 07:40 AM

I don't know you so if I'm misreading your comments, I apologize...

Your condescending lines and responses and self righteous air are exactly what make being a member of the Church difficult for the people that Dehlin and Kelly are like. The take it or leave it attitude and small tented idealistic church you seem to be advocating is not the Church that I know or want.

"I sincerely pray that KK and Dehlin will learn to toe the line and be more like me - I am wonderful afterall..." I'm pretty sure that's how your prayer above actually translates. Can I get you a rameumpton?

If this was your take away, you either didn't read anything else I said, or you chose to project what you think I feel about this and chose to argue with that. Either way, this is not really worth responding to. If I offended you, i apologize. It is a hot button issue with a lot of strong feelings either way.

NorthwestUteFan

06-13-2014, 08:13 AM

This is a very thoughtful and incisive article discussing the ramifications for the body of the church stemming from excommunications such as these. John, Kate, and Rock will land on their feet. In my opinion they will be in a far better place. But still I weep for the intolerant entity that my church and culture is striving to become.

As SeattleUte mentioned, this act carries an implied message against the more progressive Mormons that their type is not welcome. Also as is mentioned in this article, these excommunications will provide high cover for and act to embolden church members who aggressively oppose marriage equality, gender equality, or open dialog in church classes.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/06/12/on-excommunication/#more-50710

I am a life-long Latter-day Saint, a returned missionary, and a member of the bishopric in my ward. The church means the world to me and I serve as honourably as my fallen nature will allow. I am a small part of an LDS intellectual conversation that tries honestly to wed study and faith for the benefit of the church. I am trying to raise my children in the faith. Every Sunday I look at the emptying pews in my chapel in this small corner of the kingdom and feel disheartened. Our church is in serious trouble if its great modern crusade is seen to be the suppression of open discussion, the neglect of women’s voices, and an inability to raise its sights above the culture wars. Few converts will join such a church and our youth will increasingly find it intolerable.

This affects all of us, even the majority of the Saints who no doubt support these actions. The fact is that many of those rocked by these things are active Mormons who serve faithfully in their wards. I know that they are in a minority in the church, but they also tend to be people of great talent and experience and so their disaffection is a loss to more than just their own families. I know this because they are people I know, including members of my own family whose talents are really missed in wards that really need them. Their loss, or even their increasing apathy, will contribute to those empty pews remaining unfilled. The gospel of love, so desperately needed in a world in which we are crying out for the kind of principled leadership that can answer the great questions about conflict, about greed, about the environment, about the poor, about preaching Christ in a secular world, is being sold for a mess of boundary maintenance so narrow that it may one day exclude half of the church.

SeattleUte

06-13-2014, 08:30 AM

This is not about Kate (I always list the woman first), John and Rock. This is a purge of progressive Mormons. Do you favor gay marriage? Do you want to see the LDS Church patriarchy reformed? If yes, and you are LDS, you should leave; they want you gone, and you may be asked to leave if you don't change. That is the message the 15 is issuing here.

Rocker Ute

06-13-2014, 10:34 AM

I think you mean her beliefs, not her website.

Perhaps this was already mentioned, but while she is acting like this comes as a shock, there are parts of the story that I see that seem to be missing. One is that she did have a visit from her bishop that resulted in informal probation, and among parts of that discussion was about her website. In the meantime she didn't even just hold the status quo, but they pushed out a new program meant to educate members around '6 discussions' that advocated priesthood for women.

I remember reading that and thinking, "Looks like she is taking it up a notch." I can imagine that people she had talked to before her move here may have felt the same way. From an outsider's perspective (meaning one who wasn't privy to either the discussions she had with her Bishop or someone who follows this all that closely) this seems to be a far more proactive approach to what they are doing, and going beyond the "I have a point of view I'm advocating, and here are others like me" to "I am going to start actively recruiting and teaching people in LDS congregations about my views" which happen to be not in harmony with current LDS teaching.

That being said, I think in her mind she is doing 'faithful agitation' but I can also see how some might view it is just straight up agitation. We've got a few guys at my church, I think we all do, who love to agitate in class. I enjoy discussions one on one with people like that, but get bothered when they feel the needs to take over the class and distract from its purpose thinking that that hour is just for them, and ignoring the needs of others. Truth is we really only know her side of the story and it will likely stay that way.

As far as excommunication goes, I think much of that depends on her and the track she takes with it all. Going straight to NY Times etc probably isn't going to help her much.

Its all sad no matter how you slice it, and I doubt there is anyone reveling in this, well except SeattleUte ;)

Diehard Ute

06-13-2014, 01:02 PM

Perhaps this was already mentioned, but while she is acting like this comes as a shock, there are parts of the story that I see that seem to be missing. One is that she did have a visit from her bishop that resulted in informal probation, and among parts of that discussion was about her website. In the meantime she didn't even just hold the status quo, but they pushed out a new program meant to educate members around '6 discussions' that advocated priesthood for women.

I remember reading that and thinking, "Looks like she is taking it up a notch." I can imagine that people she had talked to before her move here may have felt the same way. From an outsider's perspective (meaning one who wasn't privy to either the discussions she had with her Bishop or someone who follows this all that closely) this seems to be a far more proactive approach to what they are doing, and going beyond the "I have a point of view I'm advocating, and here are others like me" to "I am going to start actively recruiting and teaching people in LDS congregations about my views" which happen to be not in harmony with current LDS teaching.

That being said, I think in her mind she is doing 'faithful agitation' but I can also see how some might view it is just straight up agitation. We've got a few guys at my church, I think we all do, who love to agitate in class. I enjoy discussions one on one with people like that, but get bothered when they feel the needs to take over the class and distract from its purpose thinking that that hour is just for them, and ignoring the needs of others. Truth is we really only know her side of the story and it will likely stay that way.

As far as excommunication goes, I think much of that depends on her and the track she takes with it all. Going straight to NY Times etc probably isn't going to help her much.

Its all sad no matter how you slice it, and I doubt there is anyone reveling in this, well except SeattleUte ;)

Not quite correct. Her bishop hadn't been involved until he sent the email.

She met with the stake president on May 5th. She moved on May 10th and her bishop wished her a good move and said nothing more .

A letter date May 22nd advised her of the "informal probation" (again not from her bishop) and laid out things to be accomplished over a period of time.

Then she gets the letter from the bishop "inviting" (sorry, I think the idea that it's an invitation is rather funny) to the disciplinary hearing.

Now say what you want about the surprise etc, but it's at best odd that the stake president and the bishop waited until she was 2,000 miles away to do this.

Sullyute

06-13-2014, 01:15 PM

Perhaps this was already mentioned, but while she is acting like this comes as a shock, there are parts of the story that I see that seem to be missing. One is that she did have a visit from her bishop that resulted in informal probation, and among parts of that discussion was about her website. In the meantime she didn't even just hold the status quo, but they pushed out a new program meant to educate members around '6 discussions' that advocated priesthood for women.I remember reading that and thinking, "Looks like she is taking it up a notch." I can imagine that people she had talked to before her move here may have felt the same way. From an outsider's perspective (meaning one who wasn't privy to either the discussions she had with her Bishop or someone who follows this all that closely) this seems to be a far more proactive approach to what they are doing, and going beyond the "I have a point of view I'm advocating, and here are others like me" to "I am going to start actively recruiting and teaching people in LDS congregations about my views" which happen to be not in harmony with current LDS teaching.

It was her stake president that met with her and then put her on probation, not her bishop. So I think she is sincere when she says that she is surprised that a "bishop's court" is being held, but she shouldn't be surprised that some form of discipline is happening. *diehard beat me to it.

As far as excommunication goes, I think much of that depends on her and the track she takes with it all. Going straight to NY Times etc probably isn't going to help her much.

I think all of that depends on her. They wouldn't bring the court if they didn't already think she was guilty of apostasy. She did say that she will step down from leadership of OW. I assume so that she can say that she cannot take the site down as she no longer has any authority over it. But it is still a peace offering to her ecclesiastical leaders. It will be interesting to see if it is enough (I doubt it).

Rocker Ute

06-13-2014, 01:27 PM

Not quite correct. Her bishop hadn't been involved until he sent the email.

She met with the stake president on May 5th. She moved on May 10th and her bishop wished her a good move and said nothing more .

A letter date May 22nd advised her of the "informal probation" (again not from her bishop) and laid out things to be accomplished over a period of time.

Then she gets the letter from the bishop "inviting" (sorry, I think the idea that it's an invitation is rather funny) to the disciplinary hearing.

Now say what you want about the surprise etc, but it's at best odd that the stake president and the bishop waited until she was 2,000 miles away to do this.

I apologize I've got some of the facts incorrect myself. I will note that typically in any formal disciplinary action the bishop and stake president are communicating, and truthfully a bishop holding this may turn out more favorably for her. So it should be too much of a surprise that communication was flowing back and forth.

My main point is that I'm certain this wasn't the first discussion she has had likely with her bishop (although perhaps her stake president) and they continued to increase what they were doing, so I don't truly think it is the surprise she has portrayed. Now she may have thought they actually wouldn't do anything and hence that surprise but it is hardly a 'that came out of nowhere' type of surprise.

I'm arguing semantics.

If true that they waited until she was far away would be disappointing if true, it is also possible that she was getting far away to avoid it too. I've seen that before.

I think she is sincere and hopefully there is some compassion for her. If it is her bishop she claims to have a good relationship with, it likely will. I can guarantee that nobody likes the notion of excommunication and my experience is that most church leaders try everything the can to avoid that.

Diehard Ute

06-13-2014, 01:29 PM

I apologize I've got some of the facts incorrect myself. I will note that typically in any formal disciplinary action the bishop and stake president are communicating, and truthfully a bishop holding this may turn out more favorably for her. So it should be too much of a surprise that communication was flowing back and forth.

My main point is that I'm certain this wasn't the first discussion she has had likely with her bishop (although perhaps her stake president) and they continued to increase what they were doing, so I don't truly think it is the surprise she has portrayed. Now she may have thought they actually wouldn't do anything and hence that surprise but it is hardly a 'that came out of nowhere' type of surprise.

I'm arguing semantics.

If true that they waited until she was far away would be disappointing if true, it is also possible that she was getting far away to avoid it too. I've seen that before.

I think she is sincere and hopefully there is some compassion for her. If it is her bishop she claims to have a good relationship with, it likely will. I can guarantee that nobody likes the notion of excommunication and my experience is that most church leaders try everything the can to avoid that.

The move was planned. Her husband is going to Kenya to study and they've moved to Provo while waiting for their paperwork. (And it sounds like everyone knew they were moving, so it's not a reaction to this)

Rocker Ute

06-13-2014, 01:37 PM

The move was planned. Her husband is going to Kenya to study and they've moved to Provo while waiting for their paperwork. (And it sounds like everyone knew they were moving, so it's not a reaction to this)

I'm feel like I'm attacking her story, I'm not. However it did strike me as strange to do a temp move right before a larger move. Maybe my aversion to moves is showing though, but if they are on a budget like she has indicated it is a puzzling add'l expense.

But the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and if they did wait that is disappointing. But remember we are only hearing her side of the story and will likely never hear the other sides.

LA Ute

06-13-2014, 01:47 PM

I think she is sincere and hopefully there is some compassion for her. If it is her bishop she claims to have a good relationship with, it likely will. I can guarantee that nobody likes the notion of excommunication and my experience is that most church leaders try everything the can to avoid that.

I am hoping for this outcome, which would be so different from prior highly-publicized cases.

But the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and if they did wait that is disappointing. But remember we are only hearing her side of the story and will likely never hear the other sides.

This is the take-home message so far. As Diehard has said (I think) there are 5 sides to every story.

Step down and disassociate? That sounds like more than enough to me.

Yeah, one would think so. I hope so.

Sullyute

06-13-2014, 01:52 PM

Step down and disassociate? That sounds like more than enough to me. And I like elder packer, so maybe there's hope.

I don't know about the second part, she just indicted the first. I like Boyd too, so we have that going for us. :)

Rocker Ute

06-13-2014, 02:04 PM

That would make sense.

DrumNFeather

06-13-2014, 02:07 PM

I apologize I've got some of the facts incorrect myself. I will note that typically in any formal disciplinary action the bishop and stake president are communicating, and truthfully a bishop holding this may turn out more favorably for her. So it should be too much of a surprise that communication was flowing back and forth.

My main point is that I'm certain this wasn't the first discussion she has had likely with her bishop (although perhaps her stake president) and they continued to increase what they were doing, so I don't truly think it is the surprise she has portrayed. Now she may have thought they actually wouldn't do anything and hence that surprise but it is hardly a 'that came out of nowhere' type of surprise.

I'm arguing semantics.

If true that they waited until she was far away would be disappointing if true, it is also possible that she was getting far away to avoid it too. I've seen that before.

I think she is sincere and hopefully there is some compassion for her. If it is her bishop she claims to have a good relationship with, it likely will. I can guarantee that nobody likes the notion of excommunication and my experience is that most church leaders try everything the can to avoid that.

I agree with you...that it is her bishop that is holding this court could actually turn out well for her, or at least better for her, especially if the SP initiated the whole thing. Were I her, I'd lay low for a few days...build up her support, ready her case, and go from there.

SeattleUte

06-13-2014, 02:26 PM

I can guarantee that nobody likes the notion of excommunication and my experience is that most church leaders try everything the can to avoid that.

Really? Then why do they do it. Zillions of Catholics are openly against Catholic opposition to same sex marriage, the Catholic patriarchy, Catholic celibacy, Catholic prohibition of planned parenthood, and so on. There are pundits and authors like Gary Wills, blogs, etc. A constant stream of public condemnation directed at the Catholic Church from all parts of the intelligentsia and every other stripe of opinionator. None of them get excommunicated. What is the difference? The Catholic Church is more grounded, more secure. This is a really ill-advised action by the LDS Church which is why its detractors are reveling in it. I can't believe Kate et al. aren't.

Rocker Ute

06-13-2014, 02:34 PM

Really? Then why do they do it. Zillions of Catholics are openly against Catholic opposition to same sex marriage, the Catholic patriarchy, Catholic celibacy, Catholic prohibition of planned parenthood, and so on. There are pundits and authors like Gary Wills, blogs, etc. A constant stream of public condemnation directed at the Catholic Church from all parts of the intelligentsia and every other stripe of opinionator. None of them get excommunicated. What is the difference? The Catholic Church is more grounded, more secure. This is a really ill-advised action by the LDS Church which is why its detractors are reveling in it. I can't believe Kate et al. aren't.

Maybe because excommunication from the Catholic Church only affects like two days a year. I kid, I kid.

But your parallel is lacking... if I look at your household and your lack of discipline of your misbehaving kids am I to suppose that you are more grounded and secure than me and my perfect and wonderful children?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rXxYz9weTs

Rocker Ute

06-13-2014, 02:36 PM

Really? Then why do they do it. Zillions of Catholics are openly against Catholic opposition to same sex marriage, the Catholic patriarchy, Catholic celibacy, Catholic prohibition of planned parenthood, and so on. There are pundits and authors like Gary Wills, blogs, etc. A constant stream of public condemnation directed at the Catholic Church from all parts of the intelligentsia and every other stripe of opinionator. None of them get excommunicated. What is the difference? The Catholic Church is more grounded, more secure. This is a really ill-advised action by the LDS Church which is why its detractors are reveling in it. I can't believe Kate et al. aren't.

Oh, and I should say, do we really want to look at the Catholic Church as an example for proper disciplinary actions against its members and clergy?

SeattleUte

06-13-2014, 03:02 PM

But your parallel is lacking... if I look at your household and your lack of discipline of your misbehaving kids am I to suppose that you are more grounded and secure than me and my perfect and wonderful children?

Maybe your children are Ritalin junkies or victims of psychological bullying.

The Catholic Church means a lot to hundreds of millions of people, especially the poor.

SeattleUte

06-13-2014, 03:05 PM

Oh, and I should say, do we really want to look at the Catholic Church as an example for proper disciplinary actions against its members and clergy?

So you equate opposing LDS opposition to civil rights (which has been constant, this is not out of character) to clergy abuse of children?

Rocker Ute

06-13-2014, 03:13 PM

So you equate opposing LDS opposition to civil rights (which has been constant, this is not out of character) to clergy abuse of children?

That's a stretch... Are you playing from the Comrade Crimson playbook of escalate to ridiculous levels in an argument?

I seem to have struck a cord here with an attempt at humor, so I'll bow out of this thread. Poor decision on my part.

SeattleUte

06-13-2014, 03:15 PM

Rocker, I'm sorry I take it back.

LA Ute

06-13-2014, 03:21 PM

Rocker, SU meant to include this in his post:

1146

I'm helping him out by supplying it for him.

Sullyute

06-13-2014, 03:24 PM

Rocker, SU meant to include this in his post:

1146

I'm helping him out by supplying it for him.

How could you not forgive a face like that?

SeattleUte

06-13-2014, 03:26 PM

Rocker, SU meant to include this in his post:

1146

I'm helping him out by supplying it for him.

Awesome. Thank you, LA.

wally

06-13-2014, 03:37 PM

Awesome. Thank you, LA.

LOL! did you forget which site you were logged into there for a moment!

I like both personas though!

LA Ute

06-13-2014, 03:41 PM

How could you not forgive a face like that?

It (almost) always works for me.

Rocker Ute

06-13-2014, 03:57 PM

How could you not forgive a face like that?

Ahhh... who can stay mad at a face like that. C'mere tiger.

SeattleUte

06-13-2014, 04:06 PM

Ahhh... who can stay mad at a face like that. C'mere tiger.

Here I am! (but the comparison to CC WAS a low blow).

Rocker Ute

06-13-2014, 04:10 PM

Here I am! (but the comparison to CC WAS a low blow).

Good point. I'm sorry. Is this the part where we do the uncomfortable bro hug?

SeattleUte

06-13-2014, 04:24 PM

Good point. I'm sorry. Is this the part where we do the uncomfortable bro hug?

How bout a smooch?

LA Ute

06-13-2014, 04:28 PM

http://www.h2g2.com/h2g2/skins/Alabaster/images/Smilies/f_smooch.gif

Scratch

06-13-2014, 04:29 PM

How bout a smooch?

Are you trying to get him excommunicated?

NorthwestUteFan

06-13-2014, 05:45 PM

I will just leave these here:

https://i.imgflip.com/9jjhr.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/58F9kL2.jpg

LA Ute

06-13-2014, 06:02 PM

I saw this and thought I'd share it:

Faith, rightly understood, does not involve any surrender of one’s critical intellectual powers, nor is it tantamount to the acceptance of things on the basis of no evidence. What Bill Maher characterizes as “faith” is nothing but superstition or credulity or intellectual irresponsibility. It is an ersatz “knowing” that falls short of the legitimate standards of reason. Real faith is not infra-rational but rather supra-rational, that is to say, not below reason but above reason and inclusive of it. It is beyond reason precisely because it is a response to the God who has revealed himself, and God is, by definition, beyond our capacity to grasp, to see, fully to understand. It involves darkness to be sure, but the darkness that comes, not from an insufficiency of light, but from a surplus of light. If you are ever tempted to agree with Bill Maher on the nature of faith, I would invite you to read any page of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, C.S. Lewis, or G.K. Chesterton and honestly ask yourself the question, “Does this sound like someone who has suspended his critical faculties?”

http://wordonfire.org/Written-Word/articles-commentaries/June-2014-(1)/Bill-Maher-and-Not-Understanding-Either-Faith-or-t.aspx

LA Ute

06-13-2014, 06:07 PM

http://i.imgur.com/58F9kL2.jpg

I don't think that is what Dehlin has been doing or even what he wanted to do. He's just been all over the place. I suspect he's helped more people out of the church than he has helped stay in. But I don't really know because I haven't followed him very closely. I can say this: everything I have ever seen or heard that he has produced (including my personal encounters with him) leaves me thinking he's a very sensitive, romantic, emotional person (nothing wrong with any of that) who doesn't know his own mind. I don't see him on a white horse.

But I love you, NWUF!

concerned

06-14-2014, 09:10 AM

So if, over time, I have experience with spiritual things, with receiving witnesses from God, that would be knowledge.

For the record, I don't believe in blind faith. I believe in going straight to the source of all truth, God, with any questions I might have.

What the heck. Ill wade in and state the obvious: you and Viking are talking about two different kinds of knowledge, and talking past each other. As a historian, is any of your knowledge based on empirical, historical evidence occurring before 1830 and outside the testimony of the BOM? If so, what?

UtahsMrSports

06-14-2014, 10:16 AM

Lol, not a comment on this discussion, but I just had to point out how funny it is that the tone of this discussion cooled out once you all united in your dislike of comrade bozo or montezumas revenge or whatever he goes by these days.

NorthwestUteFan

06-14-2014, 01:05 PM

The problems and issues he advocates for (particularly the LGTB issues, sexuality, and Scrupulosity, but also historical and cultural issues like sexism or judgemental attitudes against others with varying levels of belief) exist in a real sense in the real world within the church and affect a sizeable number of people within the church, but the leadership of the church would prefer to pretend they do not exist. Or worse they allow professional apologists at FAIR/Maxwell Institute to build up a straw man of the issue, and blow it down.

If the church chases away or silences everybody with doubts or unconventional beliefs, then the pews will empty at an even faster rate, and will remain empty permanently.

As I revisit this post this morning I see that John Dehlin's stake president has reconsidered. He has only been the SP for a few months, so perhaps the previous SP, with whom JD met every week for a year before he was allowed to baptize his son, intervened on the matter and set the new SP straight on the value of a JD to the institutional church.

NorthwestUteFan

06-14-2014, 01:10 PM

But I love you, NWUF!

Trust me when I say that I entirely believe this statement. You are like a favorite uncle. :D

LA Ute

06-14-2014, 04:00 PM

Rocker Ute

06-14-2014, 08:22 PM

Wait, are we saying that the stake president had autonomy to make this decision? Or was it directed from Salt Lake? I am confused. ;)

Zing.

Rocker Ute

06-14-2014, 08:41 PM

So I was thinking a bit about this today and how things have gone done particularly for Kate Kelly and some additional perspective as to why her records and the court are being held in VA and why it is possible that this is a good thing.

First of all, typically when a person move the clerk will either forward a person's records to their new ward or the new ward will request them.

If a person is in the middle of disciplinary action a bishop had the option to put a note for the new bishop to contact him, or they can put a hold on the record until the matter gets resolved or they've worked out with the new bishop what was entailed in the discipline. This is standard protocol and spelled out explicitly in the church handbook. In fact what she said the communication said was basically word for word what is prescribed in the handbook. In other words, she got the standard form letter that always accompanies these things, which would explain the apparent harshness of its wording from a person with whom she thought she had a relationship.

We know she was put on informal probation by her stake president, so it isn't a shock that there was a record hold.

Thinking about it, if her records were here where she is with a new bishop and stake president, they are two people who have never worked with her and certainly would have a jaded view of her because of her press coverage.

The fact that this is with her former bishop may just turn out favorably for her, if she wants it to.

What got me thinking about this is it turns out I have a friend who knows Kate and actually goes to her ward in VA. She posted on Facebook about how she doesn't share her views but definitely considered her a friend. She had moved into the ward and expected her to be abrasive and boisterous, but learned about her Kelly's love of Christ and the Church. She also noted that her bishop is a very kind and understanding man. She also noted that nobody was happy about what potentially may transpire.

Point being this: These are real people and probably good people and I don't think either side are the monsters that their opponents are portraying them to be.

If both sides approach this as they should (and that is still a big if) then it sounds like from personal accounts that things have a good chance of turning out amicably.

I really hope that is the case.

USS Utah

06-14-2014, 10:47 PM

I don't think either side are the monsters that their opponents are portraying them to be.

They never are -- or mostly never.

LA Ute

06-14-2014, 10:58 PM

Turning back to John Dehlin, it turns out that his situation is a bit more nuanced than first appeared. Here is the letter his stake president sent to him:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/229280355

That he went to the NY Times after receiving this, playing the victim, just makes we wonder about the guy. He's no monster but he's no martyr either.

LA Ute

06-14-2014, 11:08 PM

Here's Kate Kelly's letter. I don't know if this is the letter that resulted in her going to the Times. It also adds nuance to the story.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/229282164

Rocker Ute

06-15-2014, 04:50 AM

Here's Kate Kelly's letter. I don't know if this is the letter that resulted in her going to the Times. It also adds nuance to the story.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/229282164

Interesting stuff and you are right as it does add to the nuance of the story and makes one of her claims that she left that May 5th meeting thinking they 'agreed to disagree' seem a bit disingenuous. It also puts into context what I presume was the follow up action of scheduling a formal disciplinary council with her bishop when she and OW launched the OW six discussions (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57978283-78/women-ordain-lds-discussion.html.csp) just a few days after receiving that email.

I'm sure there are more details out there we all don't understand.

Mormon Red Death

06-15-2014, 05:27 AM

Viking

06-15-2014, 07:38 AM

If her bishop is a good person and doesn't want to do it then why is he doing it? Why is he wasting both her and his time?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Ponder for a moment the utter absurdity of this episode.

NorthwestUteFan

06-15-2014, 08:53 AM

Wait, are we saying that the stake president had autonomy to make this decision? Or was it directed from Salt Lake? I am confused. ;)

Who knows. Maybe John Dehlin's old tennis partner, Jeffrey Holland, intervened on his behalf. There are enough PR savvy people in the Q12 and FP that there is zero chance that they are unanimous in this.

This brings up another dilemma. What if JD, a man who openly admits that many church claims and doctrines are false and unbelievable, gets a pass while Kate Kelly, a woman who professes to have a great testimony of the church and who pushed for more equality for women, gets excommunicated? Talk about a PR nightmare. The news could play a clip of Orrin Hatch pounding the table and yelling at Sonia Johnson during the ERA hearings in the 1970s, a clip of Ezra Taft Benson's talk from the late 1980s where he mentioned that a righteous woman's place is in the home with her kids, a soundbite of Elder Christofferson's talk from conference (April 2013?) where he bemoaned the fact that more women than men get admitted to MIT, then tell the story of a believing woman who gets excommunicated in absentia by s group of men, while an unbelieving man who maintains an open dialog about church problems on his podcast gets a pass.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Rocker Ute

06-15-2014, 10:57 AM

If her bishop is a good person and doesn't want to do it then why is he doing it? Why is he wasting both her and his time?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. You also assume that there is only one outcome from this council. There isn't.

I meant that I doubt anyone relishes this opportunity. I haven't met anyone yet who wants to excommunicate someone, there may be some, but I haven't met them yet.

I don't think we should only be willing to absolve her or any of her actions, but not them. Reading the email she got it is clear that they set some terms with her of what she needed to do to get back in good standing and she did the opposite.

Point being, many have come to conclusions that just aren't warranted.

Mormon Red Death

06-15-2014, 12:18 PM

Just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. You also assume that there is only one outcome from this council. There isn't.

I meant that I doubt anyone relishes this opportunity. I haven't met anyone yet who wants to excommunicate someone, there may be some, but I haven't met them yet.

I don't think we should only be willing to absolve her or any of her actions, but not them. Reading the email she got it is clear that they set some terms with her of what she needed to do to get back in good standing and she did the opposite.

Point being, many have come to conclusions that just aren't warranted.

Seems to me that excommunication would be a big deal. If one was a believer a really big deal. If it were me I would err on the side of caution and let the higher ups figure it out.

In reality the edict came down from GAs. Since the church is a church of yes men he is just following orders. If he really didn't want to do it (seems the bishop in this case didn't but was overruled by a higher "yes man") he should have GAS do it.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

NorthwestUteFan

06-15-2014, 06:23 PM

I have to wonder whether JD wishes he got called to be a scoutmaster instead when he moved to Seattle, rather than an early morning seminary teacher. (iirc, He first began researching church history and truth claims in depth when he taught seminary).

Applejack

06-16-2014, 09:10 AM

By the way, what is "informal probation?" I had never heard that term until I read about this in the SLTRIB. Is it different than disfellowhipping?

Two Utes

06-16-2014, 09:43 AM

Here's Kate Kelly's letter. I don't know if this is the letter that resulted in her going to the Times. It also adds nuance to the story.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/229282164

This letter either establishes that Kelly lied to garner public sympathy or she is delusional. I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt and conlcude that she lied.

I grew up in a community where I associated with very few nutball Mormons. Most were educated and fairly stable. My first foray into the crazy side of the religion was my mission. One of the biggest surprises of my mission was some of my companions and some of the elders I lived with. The church does not prepare you for this side of a mission. I have a hard time associating my self with members of this organized religio for that reason. But I have just as a hard a time associating with groups who are considered "anti-mormon" or "ex-mormon" for the same reasons. I find Kelly's public comments, in light of this letter, extremely troubling. They suggest that she might be a big-time attention getter.

Rocker Ute

06-16-2014, 09:55 AM

I never heard of it either. I think the guy made it up.

Informal probation is a legitimate church action, it is usually a disciplinary action that is determined by the bishop or stake president. It might be a request to not take the sacrament for a period of time, or to not speak in church or participate in class, or temporarily revoking a temple recommend, etc. It can be accompanied with specific things you should do to get back in good standing with the church. It typically isn't documented formally and is any length determined together.

If a bishop ever told you not to take the sacrament, you were technically on 'informal probation'.

LA Ute

06-16-2014, 10:06 AM

By the way, what is "informal probation?" I had never heard that term until I read about this in the SLTRIB. Is it different than disfellowhipping?

I report, you decide. From the Handbook:

Informal Probation

Informal probation is a means for a presiding officer to restrict some of a transgressor’s privileges of Church membership. Such restrictions may include suspending the right to partake of the sacrament, hold a Church position, exercise the priesthood, or enter a temple. If the privilege of entering a temple is suspended, a member gives his temple recommend to the presiding officer for the period of suspension. Wisely administered and humbly received, informal probation can be effective in helping a transgressor repent.

In less serious cases, a presiding officer may determine that a member needs a more active rather than a less active exercise of the privileges of Church membership. In these cases, informal probation may include positive conditions such as regular Church attendance, regular prayer, and reading selected scriptures or Church literature.

Informal probation is not an option when priesthood leaders administer Church discipline for a member who has been involved in any of the serious transgressions listed in 6.12.10.

A bishop normally does not inform anyone of a decision to place a member on informal probation. No official record is made of such decisions, but the bishop may make private notes for his own use. He keeps these notes secure and destroys them after the probation concludes. If a bishop is released or if the member moves to a new ward before informal probation ends, the bishop may inform the new bishop to the extent necessary for the new bishop to supervise the remaining probation.

When a member on informal probation makes specified progress and meets prescribed conditions, the presiding officer may end the probation. If the member does not make this progress and meet the conditions, additional disciplinary action may be needed.

SeattleUte

06-16-2014, 11:38 AM

This letter either establishes that Kelly lied to garner public sympathy or she is delusional. I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt and conlcude that she lied.

I grew up in a community where I associated with very few nutball Mormons. Most were educated and fairly stable. My first foray into the crazy side of the religion was my mission. One of the biggest surprises of my mission was some of my companions and some of the elders I lived with. The church does not prepare you for this side of a mission. I have a hard time associating my self with members of this organized religio for that reason. But I have just as a hard a time associating with groups who are considered "anti-mormon" or "ex-mormon" for the same reasons. I find Kelly's public comments, in light of this letter, extremely troubling. They suggest that she might be a big-time attention getter.

What do you mean? What is the lie? The letter makes me sympathize with her.

Two Utes

06-16-2014, 12:08 PM

What do you mean? What is the lie? The letter makes me sympathize with her.

This account according to Diehard Ute:

Kate Kelly was just on Radio From Hell.

She certainly did not play a victim, but rather is upset with how this has come about.

Per Kate's interview

She moved from Virginia to Provo in the last few weeks. Kate said shed been in her Virginia ward for the past year. She said she'd never once had any discussions with her bishop regarding Ordain Women. He never questioned her, cautioned her or said anything to her about it.

Kate said she spoke with her bishop just before she left and he wished her a good move and said nothing more.

Kate said because of this she was shocked when she received the email from that same bishop advising her she would have a hearing in 3 weeks with either disfellowship or excommunication on the table.

Kate said the hearing is 3 weeks away in Virginia. She said her records have a "move hold" placed on them so she cannot do anything outside of her Virginia ward (I don't know how that stuff works so I'm just relaying what she said)

Kate said she cannot return for the hearing due to personal, financial and a family medical reason. Kate said she was offered the chance to submit a letter, and being an attorney she is preparing a brief on her own
behalf.

LA Ute

06-16-2014, 12:22 PM

What do you mean? What is the lie? The letter makes me sympathize with her.

C'mon, SU. Compare her account in her radio interview with the letter she received, imagine her as a hostile witness, and then imagine the deposition questions you'd ask her.

OrangeUte

06-16-2014, 02:28 PM

is there a transcript to the interview she and dehlin gave, or just an audio version?

LA Ute

06-17-2014, 02:06 PM

This is a point of view that will draw some fire here, but I agree with it:

The Mormon Controversy: And why it’s hurting more than feminists (http://lemmonythings.com/2014/06/15/the-mormon-controversy-and-why-its-hurting-more-than-feminists/)

And here's another:

Op-ed: Changing the church: How Ordain Women gets it wrong (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58064931-82/church-leaders-members-ordain.html.csp)

I think these are thoughtful, mainstream views.

execUTEioner

06-17-2014, 02:27 PM

An interesting excerpt from an interview that Gordon B Hinckley gave in 1997:

RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future [for women] 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.

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.

Link: http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm

Applejack

06-17-2014, 03:08 PM

I don't trust anyone who went to divinity school.

Amen.

This is a point of view that will draw some fire here, but I agree with it:

The Mormon Controversy: And why it’s hurting more than feminists (http://lemmonythings.com/2014/06/15/the-mormon-controversy-and-why-its-hurting-more-than-feminists/)

This was my first visit to "All Our Lemmony Things." While I agree that the author's views are mainstream, they are mainstream among devout mormons. Non-mormons see ex-communication, or threat of, as medieval (as our good friend SU would say).

Also, while the author's views are mainstream, she is completely wrong about how Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament:

When Christ walked the earth, not once did he sit before his disciples and spark doubt by asking one of them why something had to be.

LA Ute

06-17-2014, 03:55 PM

This was my first visit to "All Our Lemmony Things." While I agree that the author's views are mainstream, they are mainstream among devout mormons. Non-mormons see ex-communication, or threat of, as medieval (as our good friend SU would say).

Agreed. That was her intended audience, I think. She and the divinity school grad both express the intelligent mainstream believer's perspective pretty well. (It is not that difficult to express.)

Also, while the author's views are mainstream, she is completely wrong about how Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament:

I read her comment as being about whether Jesus ever tried to "spark doubt" in what he was teaching (i.e., to a believer, the gospel of Christ). He certainly challenged ("sparked doubt" about) the existing order of things, which believers see as the apostate/misguided/error-filled version of the Mosaic Law then in vogue among the Jews. But that's not what she is talking about.

SeattleUte

06-18-2014, 11:42 AM

I have a question for all of you: Do you deny that public opinion affected the LDS Church when it eliminated the priesthood ban?

Scratch

06-18-2014, 11:54 AM

I have a question for all of you: Do you deny that public opinion affected the LDS Church when it eliminated the priesthood ban?

Please define what you mean by "affected," counselor.

LA Ute

06-18-2014, 12:13 PM

I have a question for all of you: Do you deny that public opinion affected the LDS Church when it eliminated the priesthood ban?

I'll discuss this with you after you've read the David O. McKay bio by Greg Prince and the Spencer W. Kimball bio by Edward and Andrew Kimball.

SeattleUte

06-18-2014, 01:10 PM

Please define what you mean by "affected," counselor.

I'm quite surprised by this question as I was being as charitable as possible. Anyone who lived through it or studies the times and what has happened since could only conclude that because of societal disapproval and pressure the LDS Church would have ceased to exist except as a widely reviled cult on the fringes of society had it not ceased its racist beliefs and practices. These changing societal mores, expectations and pressures are really the only explanation for the change. As we've seen, the LDS Church has consistently opposed social progress.

LA Ute

06-18-2014, 01:22 PM

I'm quite surprised by this question as I was being as charitable as possible. Anyone who lived through it or studies the times and what has happened since could only conclude that because of societal disapproval and pressure the LDS Church would have ceased to exist except as a widely reviled cult on the fringes of society had it not ceased its racist beliefs and practices. These changing societal mores, expectations and pressures are really the only explanation for the change. As we've seen, the LDS Church has consistently opposed social progress.

1152

Scratch

06-18-2014, 02:20 PM

1152

This.

NorthwestUteFan

06-19-2014, 08:28 AM

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/us/critical-online-comments-put-church-status-at-risk-mormons-say.html?hp&_r=2&referrer=

It may be true that these individual actions are occurring at the local level. But it is also fairly obvious that pressure is coming down on local leaders from above, and they are rooting out the 'problems' in their local wards.

Kate Kelly's father has attended the temple at least weekly for 40+ years (an impressive accomplishment in its own right), but last week he and his wife had their temple recommends revoked by their Bishop presumably for supporting their daughter.

Kevin Kloosterman, a recently-released Bishop who gave the following talk describing his change of heart regarding gays Ans openly apologized to gays for the way they are treated in the church, was called in by his Bishop and had his temple recommend revoked. The Bishop presented a copy of a tweet that he made congratulating the first same-sex couple to get married in Utah, refused to provide the name of the person who showed him that tweet, and demanded that Kevin surrender his TR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDfYQbCro7M&feature=youtube_gdata_player

My wife has been discussing some of her questions and issues with the Relief Society president and asked for confidentiality. The RSP discussed her in Ward Council, and now is asking if she can set up an appointment with the Bishop for my wife. I don't know where this will lead but if pressure is coming down from the top, then I don't see any positives.

To complicate things, the Stake President is very highly placed at my company, and the RSP is a Vice President at my wife's company...

Diehard Ute

06-19-2014, 10:28 AM

Viking

06-19-2014, 10:42 AM

I think the real question isn't whether these two should go to church court.

The real question is why does a church police its members at all?

LA Ute

06-19-2014, 11:24 AM

I don't see what's wrong with this:

Michael Otterson, managing director of the church’s public affairs office, said: "There is no coordinated effort to tell local leaders to keep their members from blogging or discussing their questions online. On the contrary, church leaders have encouraged civil online dialogue, and recognize that today it’s just part of how the world works."

However, he said, church leaders do grow concerned when discussion is used to recruit others for campaigns to change church doctrine or structure.

"When it goes so far as creating organized groups, staging public events to further a cause, and creating literature for members to share in their local congregations," Otterson said, "the church has to protect the integrity of its doctrine as well as other members from being misled."

...

"This is clearly boundary maintenance," said Jan Shipps, a professor emerita of history and religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has written extensively about the Mormon church. "They had essentially created a porous boundary, but once you have a porous boundary, sooner or later you’re going to have to maintain a boundary that says, ‘This is as far as you can go.’"

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/58088940-219/church-bishop-leaders-mormons.html.csp

When you're a member of just about any organized church (I know there are exceptions) you don't get to say and do whatever you want. It's pretty simple.

Also, we are being flooded with news reports and blog posts telling one side of these stories, from the viewpoint of the aggrieved parties. It's like trying to follow a jury trial that is being conducted confidentially, based on the comments on the courthouse steps from the lawyer for one party. Just thought I'd remind everyone of that.

Diehard Ute

06-19-2014, 11:30 AM

Viking

06-19-2014, 11:59 AM

I don't see what's wrong with this:

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/58088940-219/church-bishop-leaders-mormons.html.csp

When you're a member of just about any organized church (I know there are exceptions) you don't get to say and do whatever you want. It's pretty simple.

Also, we are being flooded with news reports and blog posts telling one side of these stories, from the viewpoint of the aggrieved parties. It's like trying to follow a jury trial that is being conducted confidentially, based on the comments on the courthouse steps from the lawyer for one party. Just thought I'd remind everyone of that.

Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, protestants have the opportunity to believe and worship in vastly different ways.

I attended Catholic prep school and I heard criticisms of the Vatican every day in theology class. Yes, catholics excommunicate but it is exceptionally rare.

I think you're just incorrect on this point, LA.

The Mormons don't want to be called a cult but punishing dissention is very cult-like.

LA Ute

06-19-2014, 12:40 PM

I'd love examples to back up your claim that this is common within other churches.

You're missing the point, but I'll respond anyway. Here's a breakdown from the all-knowing Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication#Lutheranism

I personally only know about Catholics and a little about Presbyterians. My devout Catholic friends tell me that if someone in their parish were doing the Catholic equivalent of what Kate Kelly has been doing, they'd be told not to take communion. According to my Evangelical Christian buddy who nevertheless belongs to the PCUSA, if people are ticked off at their pastor they just go to another PCUSA church, or they change to another Protestant church, or they quit going to church. I have no personal knowledge as to whether that is true.

Many mainstream Protestant churches expect little of their members (which is not a criticism, just the reality) so I can see why excommunication would just seem weird to their members.

The LDS statement of belief on church discipline is in Section 143 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

The point I was making is that when you sign up to join a church, you sign up to abide by its rules. You don't get to say or do whatever you want without the church saying or doing something about it. Hey, at least we don't shun people like the Quakers do!

Diehard Ute

06-19-2014, 12:51 PM

You're missing the point, but I'll respond anyway. Here's a breakdown from the all-knowing Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication#Lutheranism

I personally only know about Catholics and a little about Presbyterians. My devout Catholic friends tell me that if someone in their parish were doing the Catholic equivalent of what Kate Kelly has been doing, they'd be told not to take communion. According to my Evangelical Christian buddy who nevertheless belongs to the PCUSA, if people are ticked off at their pastor they just go to another PCUSA church, or they change to another Protestant church, or they quit going to church. I have no personal knowledge as to whether that is true.

Many mainstream Protestant churches expect little of their members (which is not a criticism, just the reality) so I can see why excommunication would just seem weird to their members.

The LDS statement of belief on church discipline is in Section 143 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

The point I was making is that when you sign up to join a church, you sign up to abide by its rules. You don't get to say or do whatever you want without the church saying or doing something about it. Hey, at least we don't shun people like the Quakers do!

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. There's really few religions that have the disciplinary process the LDS church does for expressing opinions etc.

It's certainly the LDS churches prerogative to do so, but I think your attempt to say you join any church you're going to give up your right to say what you want is misleading.

As someone who was raised Presbyterian with two aunts who are/were (one passed away at age 40) ordained Presbyterian ministers I'm very familiar with the PCUSA. They're far different (as are all Protestant churches, and to some degree the Catholic Church) in terms of things such as what church you attend. You choose your congregation. Doesn't matter where you live, you go wherever you want. If you are a member at one congregation and decide to move, your membership is transferred. (Catholics also choose their church)

But the actual minister at a church doesn't determine much in terms of how the actual church is run in the Presbyterian church. The church is run by an elected board of elders known as the "session". The dice depends on the size of the church. But all matters are voted on by said panel. (And in all the years I was on session, or have had family members on session no one was ever "disciplined")

The hiring of a new pastor is a long process once again conducted by the members.

And people certainly DO agitate lobby etc for change in most Protestant churches.

To say Protestant churches expect little of their members is a very inaccurate and unfair statement IMO

Rocker Ute

06-19-2014, 01:19 PM

Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, protestants have the opportunity to believe and worship in vastly different ways.

I attended Catholic prep school and I heard criticisms of the Vatican every day in theology class. Yes, catholics excommunicate but it is exceptionally rare.

I think you're just incorrect on this point, LA.

The Mormons don't want to be called a cult but punishing dissention is very cult-like.

Not to sidetrack this discussion, but it seems the defenders of Mozilla around the forced resignation of Brendan Eich when his personal views and donation habits weren't in alignment with the company vision are not the same people defending the LDS church for a similar action and vice versa. Is it because it is a religion versus a business? Is it because Kate Kelly was more or less proactive than Eich on her position?

We see 'excommunications' of sorts all the time in society, whether informal or not. From my biased view, I view excommunication as not just an invitation out of an organization, but hopefully the beginning of a path to get someone back within an organization. Not that that makes it sound any less 'cult-ish'.

But who cares if someone thinks I belong to a cult? I prefer people avoiding me in the supermarket.

NorthwestUteFan

06-19-2014, 02:16 PM

Not to sidetrack this discussion, but it seems the defenders of Mozilla around the forced resignation of Brendan Eich when his personal views and donation habits weren't in alignment with the company vision are not the same people defending the LDS church for a similar action and vice versa. Is it because it is a religion versus a business? Is it because Kate Kelly was more or less proactive than Eich on her position?

We see 'excommunications' of sorts all the time in society, whether informal or not. From my biased view, I view excommunication as not just an invitation out of an organization, but hopefully the beginning of a path to get someone back within an organization. Not that that makes it sound any less 'cult-ish'.

But who cares if someone thinks I belong to a cult? I prefer people avoiding me in the supermarket.

This is different from telling somebody "you don't get to hang out with us any longer". This is telling somebody "You don't get to hang out with us any longer, and as a side benefit you don't get to be with your family in Heaven. We will now shame you behind your back and most of your friends in the church will avoid you so they don't damage their testimonies, and your mother will weep over your fallen state and wonder where she went wrong. Enjoy an unnecessarily complicated existence in this life, and a lonely existence in the life to come."

I wish the leaders of the church had listened to B. H. Roberts 100+ years ago when he presented his list of historical problems to them, rather than just bore testimony as to the truthfulness of the BOM and the church, and buried their heads in the sand about everything else.

In 30 years when the church supports gay marriage (but not necessarily temple sealings for gay couples) will they issue apologies for people who get purged today for supporting marriage equality? When some future church president (Uchtdorf?) decides to give the priesthood to women as they had it in the days before Brigham Young and allows women to give priesthood blessings to sick people as they did before the 1940s and has only women interview other women and teenage girls regarding 'worthiness' issues (sexuality), will they give Kate Kelly an apology?

No, probably not. Maybe if they are lucky they will get an 'Oops, mistakes were made (but not NY us). We have expunged the record...' a la Avraham Gileadi.

Viking

06-19-2014, 02:29 PM

This is making the rounds.

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

I can assure Mr. Wheatley he has no authority to act in the name of "God's love".

There are a lot of things Mormonism is, but one thing it is definitely not is "the only true and living church."

Mormon leadership proves this over and over again that they definitely do not speak with god. If they did, he'd tell them how absurd this all is in the real world and to quit being assholes and then blaming it on him.

Applejack

06-19-2014, 03:01 PM

Rocker Ute

06-19-2014, 03:36 PM

This is different from telling somebody "you don't get to hang out with us any longer". This is telling somebody "You don't get to hang out with us any longer, and as a side benefit you don't get to be with your family in Heaven. We will now shame you behind your back and most of your friends in the church will avoid you so they don't damage their testimonies, and your mother will weep over your fallen state and wonder where she went wrong. Enjoy an unnecessarily complicated existence in this life, and a lonely existence in the life to come."

I wish the leaders of the church had listened to B. H. Roberts 100+ years ago when he presented his list of historical problems to them, rather than just bore testimony as to the truthfulness of the BOM and the church, and buried their heads in the sand about everything else.

In 30 years when the church supports gay marriage (but not necessarily temple sealings for gay couples) will they issue apologies for people who get purged today for supporting marriage equality? When some future church president (Uchtdorf?) decides to give the priesthood to women as they had it in the days before Brigham Young and allows women to give priesthood blessings to sick people as they did before the 1940s and has only women interview other women and teenage girls regarding 'worthiness' issues (sexuality), will they give Kate Kelly an apology?

No, probably not. Maybe if they are lucky they will get an 'Oops, mistakes were made (but not NY us). We have expunged the record...' a la Avraham Gileadi.

I might argue that the stigma that now accompanies Mr Eich is and will be greater than the stigma that will follow Ms Kelly (assuming excommunication for her - I would also guess that those who would distance themselves from her or weep over her fallen state did so long before informal probation or disciplinary councils ever occurred). But for Eich it will be hard for him to get a job ever again, certainly at the level he once had. The publication of his activities has made him a pariah in most social circles in the US, and even those who may agree with his views may hesitate to hire or associate with him because of this. Of course he only has his millions of dollars earned previously to comfort him.

Kelly has been responsible for all public knowledge of the actions, and I will guess that if the outcome isn't positive for her, we'll likely hear about the details. Truth be known, had she wanted she easily could have been excommunicated and continued to go to church and most people there would have been none-the-wiser. If you don't believe that, I had a guy who I was good friends with who told me at the end of his excommunication (he rejoined) that he had been excommunicated and that was the only way I found out, and I was in a position at the time where I likely would have known before most. The old days of announcing it from the pulpit are long gone.

So typically it is as discrete as you want it to be.

I also might argue excommunication in the views of Mormons is the ends and not the means of disconnecting yourself from an eternal family and/or God. The excommunication is a formality at that point. The stated goal is to help them come back first, protect the innocent (not applicable here), and maintain the reputation of the church (oops).

But all of that is neither here nor there. My points were some people were up in arms about the treatment of Eich who remain silent now, and others who felt Eich's treatment was justified and are upset about Kelly now, and that forms of 'excommunications' whether formal or not happen all the time in all kinds of different organizations.

Now if I were a betting man, I'm going to guess that Kate Kelly comes out of this with a disfellowshipping. It's not my job to make that determination, and while I might agree that what she is teaching isn't in 'harmony with the gospel' I don't believe that she has lead anyone away from the church, and what she has done does not rise to the level of other things for which one might get excommunicated.

Scorcho

06-19-2014, 04:41 PM

He runs a blog called pure Mormonism. I'm not that familiar -- here's a brief explanation from a mosto podcast he was on.
http://mormonstories.org/rock-waterman-and-pure-mormonism/

He posted on a facebook group:

I just heard! And I can confirm that this purge is coming from the top leadership because my bishop delivered the ultimatum to me which he said came from an area Seventy. I have not mentioned it until now because I have not yet heard from my Stake President. (Like John, I have never met my SP either.) I was given the option to stop blogging or resign, otherwise face excommunication.
According to Church law, accusations must originate from a local member. I have a quote around here somewhere from Joseph Smith where he tells the Twelve they are not to interfere in local branches. But since when has the modern hierarchy ever considered the rules apply to them?

What? “accusations must originate from a local member?” That’s all sort of creepy. That might fly at a certain religious based University in Orem, but not in the real world.

Doesn’t that give members a license to meddle, gossip and look for wrong doing in others? From my perspective this is something the church works hard at discouraging, not encouraging. I can appreciate that in some cases (child abuse or certain crimes) that it’s absolutely necessary to inform your leader. However, if I find out that my Elders Quorum Secretary is having an affair, I’m not going to my bishop/stake pres. to inform him, that’s none of my business.

I much prefer the snitches get stitches approach.

LA Ute

06-19-2014, 05:10 PM

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. There's really few religions that have the disciplinary process the LDS church does for expressing opinions etc.

I think we are talking past each other. My point was that when you sign up to join a church, you sign up to abide by its rules. In the great majority of faiths, you don't get to say or do whatever you want without the church saying or doing something about it. Did you look at the Wikipedia link?

To say Protestant churches expect little of their members is a very inaccurate and unfair statement IMO

That was a generalization and not meant to be a put-down in any way. Mormonism requires a pretty substantial commitment of time and resources (including money) in order to be a member in good standing. For example, the affirmations required to obtain a temple recommend are pretty demanding -- they include affirmations that the member accepts not only the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve as prophets, seers and revelators, but also the president of the church as God's prophet on the earth in our time. It is not for everyone. I'm hard-pressed to think of another faith that asks such things. Maybe Orthodox Judaism? Anyway, what's important to this discussion is that Kelly and Dehlin know all of these expectations, and that flouting them has serious consequences.

Just to be clear: I love hanging out with, and talking religion with, my Presbyterian, Lutheran. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist and Jewish (from all three branches) friends. It is a pleasure, and a dimension to my life that would be much harder to come by if I lived someplace like Utah.

NorthwestUteFan

06-19-2014, 05:14 PM

My points were some people were up in arms about the treatment of Eich who remain silent now, and others who felt Eich's treatment was justified and are upset about Kelly now, and that for

Excommunication, disfellowshipment, and resignations all get discussed in Ward Council and from there hit the rumor mill. When a person has to refuse to take the sacrament or pray in church, people notice and the rumor mill turns. When somebody has to stop wearing garments people will notice and the more brazen will do the shoulder or backrub 'feel up' checking for seams. When your parents go in for the Tithing Settlement shakedown at the end of the year and no longer have your name listed at the bottom if the sheet under 'Children of Record', they will absolutely take notice.

This is all about shaming, but in that controlling and passive-aggressive Mormon way. And the people who are the most succeptible to emotional damage inflicted in this way are the people who really, truly believe in the church.

Again, excommunication carries with it the cancelling of temple blessings, with associated loss of the Eternal Family. If the church's claims are true, then excommunication is effectively an eternal divorce from everybody you love.

People who don't believe or care about the church's claims to sole authority DGAS. Or, as in the case of Rock Waterman, they believe that the corporation of the church is so far removed from the Gospel already that they already refuse to acknowledge the authority of the leadership in SLC.

As to your points on Eich and Kelly: both the LDS church and Eich are profoundly wrong on the issue of marriage equality, and the LDS church is still wrong on the issue of equality for women. History will not be kind to the church or Eich, unless they both mainstream their ideologies, at which point these events will largely become uninteresting footnotes in obscure books.

NorthwestUteFan

06-19-2014, 05:25 PM

I think we are talking past each other. My point was that when you sign up to join a church, you sign up to abide by its rules. In the great majority of faiths, you don't get to say or do whatever you want without the church saying or doing something about it.

The problem is that sometimes defining Mormon doctrine is similar to nailing jello to the wall. This is specifically true in Kate Kelly's case, because women were ordained to 'the fullness of the Priesthood' by Joseph Smith, and women were still allowed to give priesthood blessings until the early 1940s. These things are very well documented, including in the recent book 'Beginnings of Better Days' by Sheri Dew.

Can't get much more authoritative a source than the former General Relief Society president and current president of Deseret Book.

LA Ute

06-19-2014, 05:38 PM

The problem is that sometimes defining Mormon doctrine is similar to nailing jello to the wall. This is specifically true in Kate Kelly's case, because women were ordained to 'the fullness of the Priesthood' by Joseph Smith, and women were still allowed to give priesthood blessings until the early 1940s. These things are very well documented, including in the recent book 'Beginnings of Better Days' by Sheri Dew.

Can't get much more authoritative a source than the former General Relief Society president and current president of Deseret Book.

Points well taken, but there's no way Kelly and Dehlin didn't know they were on thin ice. BTW, the Dallin Oaks talk in the April GC trumps anything the President of Deseret Book said. ;)

Rocker Ute

06-19-2014, 06:38 PM

Excommunication, disfellowshipment, and resignations all get discussed in Ward Council and from there hit the rumor mill. When a person has to refuse to take the sacrament or pray in church, people notice and the rumor mill turns. When somebody has to stop wearing garments people will notice and the more brazen will do the shoulder or backrub 'feel up' checking for seams. When your parents go in for the Tithing Settlement shakedown at the end of the year and no longer have your name listed at the bottom if the sheet under 'Children of Record', they will absolutely take notice.

This is all about shaming, but in that controlling and passive-aggressive Mormon way. And the people who are the most succeptible to emotional damage inflicted in this way are the people who really, truly believe in the church.

Again, excommunication carries with it the cancelling of temple blessings, with associated loss of the Eternal Family. If the church's claims are true, then excommunication is effectively an eternal divorce from everybody you love.

People who don't believe or care about the church's claims to sole authority DGAS. Or, as in the case of Rock Waterman, they believe that the corporation of the church is so far removed from the Gospel already that they already refuse to acknowledge the authority of the leadership in SLC.

As to your points on Eich and Kelly: both the LDS church and Eich are profoundly wrong on the issue of marriage equality, and the LDS church is still wrong on the issue of equality for women. History will not be kind to the church or Eich, unless they both mainstream their ideologies, at which point these events will largely become uninteresting footnotes in obscure books.

This was all pretty funny... Among many nitpicks I have with the above puff piece one thing:

Unless you are living in your mom's basement as an dependent you don't show up on tithing settlement shakedowns.

If you are an adult living in your mom's basement you should probably be ex'd for all the child p*rn you have on your computer, not to mention for still having Star Wars action figures in display, but the bottom line is your mom already knows.

NorthwestUteFan

06-19-2014, 07:10 PM

I know of several people who are adults who lived on their own for several decades before being exercise or resigning, whose parents found out they were no longer part of the 'eternal family' at tithing settlement.

Diehard Ute

06-19-2014, 08:07 PM

I think we are talking past each other. My point was that when you sign up to join a church, you sign up to abide by its rules. In the great majority of faiths, you don't get to say or do whatever you want without the church saying or doing something about it. Did you look at the Wikipedia link?

That was a generalization and not meant to be a put-down in any way. Mormonism requires a pretty substantial commitment of time and resources (including money) in order to be a member in good standing. For example, the affirmations required to obtain a temple recommend are pretty demanding -- they include affirmations that the member accepts not only the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve as prophets, seers and revelators, but also the president of the church as God's prophet on the earth in our time. It is not for everyone. I'm hard-pressed to think of another faith that asks such things. Maybe Orthodox Judaism? Anyway, what's important to this discussion is that Kelly and Dehlin know all of these expectations, and that flouting them has serious consequences.

Just to be clear: I love hanging out with, and talking religion with, my Presbyterian, Lutheran. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist and Jewish (from all three branches) friends. It is a pleasure, and a dimension to my life that would be much harder to come by if I lived someplace like Utah.

I already was aware to the information on Wikipedia. It's interesting to note that the LDS church and the Catholic Church do not have the same definition of excommunication.

I know exactly what you were getting at. I just don't think it's true. Again I would love to see other churches with public examples of people being punished for blog posts etc. I think you're overstating what other churches do to try and back your belief. (Presbyterians have nasty public debates regarding difference of opinion. In fact just today the PCUSA changed their definition of marriage, ok'd same sex weddings and at the same time stated clergy who have a different belief and interpretation of scripture and god can choose to not participate)

As for the time and monetary commitments, this isn't a pissing contest. I'm well aware of what's expected of many people in the LDS church. I'm also very aware of what's required from other churches and the struggles of those churches. That's for another thread or a PM if you're interested in the way things work.

Viking

06-19-2014, 08:24 PM

My great great grandmother, who pulled a handcart in the Willey & martin company and whose journals serve as the primary historical reference of that sad journey, would not be a Mormon today. The chutzpah my family has came from her and there's no way she would stick with a religion that persecuted its own. Not after losing her father in Wyoming in a snowstorm.

Mormonism needs to grow up.

LA Ute

06-19-2014, 08:31 PM

I already was aware to the information on Wikipedia. It's interesting to note that the LDS church and the Catholic Church do not have the same definition of excommunication.

I know exactly what you were getting at. I just don't think it's true. Again I would love to see other churches with public examples of people being punished for blog posts etc. I think you're overstating what other churches do to try and back your belief. (Presbyterians have nasty public debates regarding difference of opinion. In fact just today the PCUSA changed their definition of marriage, ok'd same sex weddings and at the same time stated clergy who have a different belief and interpretation of scripture and god can choose to not participate)

As for the time and monetary commitments, this isn't a pissing contest. I'm well aware of what's expected of many people in the LDS church. I'm also very aware of what's required from other churches and the struggles of those churches. That's for another thread or a PM if you're interested in the way things work.

We'll chat about it all at Hires someday.

Diehard Ute

06-19-2014, 08:31 PM

We'll chat about it all at Hires someday.

Works for me! :)

NorthwestUteFan

06-19-2014, 08:45 PM

Points well taken, but there's no way Kelly and Dehlin didn't know they were on thin ice. BTW, the Dallin Oaks talk in the April GC trumps anything the President of Deseret Book said. ;)

Of course they knew they were on thin ice. The church claims to be an accepting, big-tent kind of church with their excellent 'I am a Mormon' ad campaign, but in truth they tolerate very little discussion outside of the church's predefined, narrow discussion points. And they absolutely do not tolerate any form of dissention among the ranks.

Dallin H. Oaks essentially said, "Why won't you people adhere to the 'Unwritten Order of Things'? I don't need to give you the chapter and verse that says women can't hold the priesthood (and in fact can't do it because those verses don't exist outside of enigmatic, anonymous writings like the Church Handbook of Instructions), and we will not be ordered to pray to God to ask whether the time is right. In fact we all have our Second Anointing and are already assured to be Gods in the next life. We don't even need to ask the question of God because our wills are so perfectly aligned with God's that we already know what He will say, so we don't even waste time bothering him about anything any more because we already have all the revelation we require".

LA Ute

06-20-2014, 01:42 PM

Just saw this:

LDS Church Spokeswoman Jessica Moody issued the following statement Thursday in response to media inquiries concerning the ability of church members to raise questions and seek answers in the church:

First, there is no effort to tell local leaders to keep members from blogging or discussing questions online. On the contrary, Church leaders have encouraged civil online dialogue, and recognize that today it's how we communicate and discuss ideas with one another. Our whole Church was founded on the basis of sincere questions asked by a 14-year-old boy. Having
questions and seeking answers is normal. Within those earnest questions may lie the seeds of faith.

The scriptures are full of examples of how to receive answers to our questions — to find truth and align our will with God's — and that process includes studying, praying, learning and discussing Church doctrines. Millions of people do this throughout their lives. How and why one asks is as important as the questions we're asking. What causes concern for Church leaders is when personal motivations drive those conversations beyond discussion, and a person or group begins recruiting others to insist on changes in Church doctrines or structure. When it goes so far as creating organized groups, staging public events to further a cause or creating literature for members to share in their local congregations, the Church has to protect the integrity of its doctrine as well as other members from being misled.

At the heart of the conversation are matters of faith and doctrine. We believe these doctrines are given to us by God in simple ways: through scripture and through living prophets and apostles. If our personal goals go beyond what has been provided from those sources, we must ask ourselves whether we are we trying to change His Church to match our own perspective.

As a Church, we've been looking for several years on what we can improve and change — cultural elements that are not tied to doctrine. We've had and will continue to have dozens of meaningful, helpful conversations with a variety of voices and perspectives about cultural changes. From my perspective, it's a very exciting time to be a member!

It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on any of the individual cases you've heard about recently, as those are personal matters dealt with at a local level. But I can provide some principles. In dealing with all of these issues and questions, a local lay leader is the one who determines how they apply to those he serves. If he becomes troubled by a member's actions, he can rely on his own spiritual insights, personal prayer, guidance from handbooks and his training to determine how best to address the member's circumstances. For instance, their standard procedural handbook says: "Local presiding officers should not expect General Authorities to tell them how to decide difficult matters. Decisions on Church discipline are within the discretion and authority of local presiding officers as they prayerfully seek guidance from the Lord."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765655450/LDS-Church-responds-to-concerns-over-member-questions.html

U-Ute

06-20-2014, 08:05 PM

9 pages in 9 days.

You guys are putting in WORK.

LA Ute

06-21-2014, 12:39 AM

9 pages in 9 days.

You guys are putting in WORK.

It's a hot issue. My main job, as always, is to set evryone straight. it's exhausting work, but someone has to do it. ;)

Viking

06-21-2014, 08:58 AM

Hey guys, I have to apologize for being disrespectful to many ofbyou and your closely held views. I crossed the line various times in this thread. Sorry.

NorthwestUteFan

06-21-2014, 09:39 AM

https://askmormongirl.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/the-real-mormon-moment-is-now/

We hoped this day would not come. Because we know that excommunication courts are a nineteenth-century Mormon solution to twenty-first century Mormon problems. Exiling and shaming a dozen, two dozen, one hundred, one thousand heterdox Mormons won’t close the book on women’s issues, or LGBT issues, or historical controversies in Mormonism. You could rid the church of an entire generation of querulous bloggers and grassroots organizers and another will rise and take its place. Because these controversies are not private and individual. They are not personal problems. They are the product of Mormon history, Mormon doctrine, and Mormon culture. We didn’t invent them. We inherited them, as will the generations to follow, each taking its turn in the search for truth. Because that is what Mormonism means.

NorthwestUteFan

06-21-2014, 09:41 AM

It's a hot issue. My main job, as always, is to set evryone straight. it's exhausting work, but someone has to do it. ;)

Keep it up and only the Daniel Peterson's of the world will be there to keep you company in HPG.

LA Ute

06-21-2014, 10:54 AM

Keep it up and only the Daniel Peterson's of the world will be there to keep you company in HPG.

People should not confuse my defense of the faith here with my having hard-core views. I don't let just anyone see my inner teddy bear.

LA Ute

06-21-2014, 01:38 PM

This is a very interesting piece. It's by Valerie Hudson:

Zion in Her Beauty Rises: Current Discourse on Women and the Priesthood by Ballard, Dew, and Oaks (http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerOaksBallardDew.html)

She is a heavyweight:

Dr. Valerie Hudson joined the faculty of Texas A&M University at the Bush School in 2012 as the George Bush Chair. She is considered an expert on international security and foreign policy analysis, she received her PhD in political science at The Ohio State University. Prior to going to Texas A&M she taught at Brigham Young University. In 2009, Foreign Policy named her one of the top 100 Most Influential Global Thinkers. Dr. Hudson developed a nation-by-nation database on women (http://womanstats.org) that triggered both academic and policy interest including use by both the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and various agencies of the United Nations. Her research and teaching experience is also complemented by three major teaching awards and numerous research awards. She is a founding editorial board member of Foreign Policy Analysis, and also serves on the editorial boards of Politics and Gender and International Studies Review. More information can be found on her website, http://vmrhudson.org.

Viking

06-21-2014, 01:46 PM

This is a very interesting piece. It's by Valerie Hudson:

Zion in Her Beauty Rises: Current Discourse on Women and the Priesthood by Ballard, Dew, and Oaks (http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerOaksBallardDew.html)

She is a heavyweight:

Very good read. Just ordain women, already, and get this over with! You can only argue priesthood by proxy and association for so long.

Viking

06-21-2014, 02:06 PM

The Pope exes mobsters. Mormons may ex feminists and defenders of LBGT rights.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/21/pope-excommunicates-mafia-members/?hpt=hp_t1

LA Ute

06-21-2014, 02:14 PM

Very good read. Just ordain women, already, and get this over with! You can only argue priesthood by proxy and association for so long.

Hey, I signed up for this circus and I'm staying on until the show closes.

Viking

06-21-2014, 02:18 PM

Hey, I signed up for this circus and I'm staying on until the show closes.

OK, when a teenage girl blesses the sacrament, which is then passed by a married gay man, I will return to mormonism. Deal?

NorthwestUteFan

06-21-2014, 02:25 PM

People should not confuse my defense of the faith here with my having hard-core views. I don't let just anyone see my inner teddy bear.

I look forward to the day when you can feel comfortable discussing your own, personal, private religious views, without bowing your head to give the 'expected answer'*, without fear of feeling reproach or seeing raised eyebrows.

*I suspect you are very close to that point on marriage equality. My Spidey Sense tingles and informs me that you are deeply conflicted between your actual feelings on the issue, and the religious and political answer you are expected to give. :)

LA Ute

06-21-2014, 02:27 PM

OK, when a teenage girl blesses the sacrament, which is then passed by a married gay man, I will return to mormonism. Deal?

As long as you don't hold out for a female gay bishop, we have a deal. But you are invited to return even before that day.

NorthwestUteFan

06-21-2014, 02:29 PM

Very good read. Just ordain women, already, and get this over with! You can only argue priesthood by proxy and association for so long.

Honestly this won't/can't happen without a significant change in the temple endowment and sealing ceremonies. Even after the changed in 1990 the wording still places a woman in a subordinate position to their husband, although the vow to 'obey the law of their husband' was removed.

NorthwestUteFan

06-21-2014, 02:39 PM

OK, when a teenage girl blesses the sacrament, which is then passed by a married gay man, I will return to mormonism. Deal?

I want teenaged girls or adult women to be counseled and given worthiness interviews only by a female authority figure, especially for issues regarding sexuality.

That is the reason I support the Ordain Women movement.

Viking

06-21-2014, 03:16 PM

As long as you don't hold out for a female gay bishop, we have a deal. But you are invited to return even before that day.

Lesbian bishop? AWESOME.

Rocker Ute

06-21-2014, 04:12 PM

I want better music, better movie production values and the occasional omelet bar. I also want a specific ban on parents bringing their children to the pulpit and whispering in their ear their testimony (as if they were the Holy Ghost as my grandpa would say).

Should we maybe gather up 95 of these ideas and nail them to the temple door (or sticky note them to the sliding glass door).

USS Utah

06-21-2014, 04:39 PM

No more baby blessings in Sacrament Meeting.

Everybody being kind to each other, no matter what, for real.

chrisrenrut

06-21-2014, 05:15 PM

. . .I also want a specific ban on parents bringing their children to the pulpit and whispering in their ear their testimony (as if they were the Holy Ghost as my grandpa would say).. .

Our stake has already cracked down on this. Maybe there are still some inspired local leaders!

LA Ute

06-21-2014, 06:00 PM

Our stake has already cracked down on this. Maybe there are still some inspired local leaders!

A letter actually came out from the FP about this. Our bishop reads it aloud in testimony meeting every couple of months. It still doesn't deter some people but I think it cuts down most of that behavior.

LA Ute

06-21-2014, 06:16 PM

Lesbian bishop? AWESOME.

I want you to be bishop. Beyond awesome.

Viking

06-21-2014, 06:42 PM

I definitely have the lineage. GAs and stake presidents and bishops...and then first prez of the U

LA Ute

06-21-2014, 07:11 PM

i definitely have the lineage. Gas and stake presidents and bishops...and then first prez of the u

SEE??!! I'm telling ya, man....

Diehard Ute

06-21-2014, 07:20 PM

Lesbian bishop? AWESOME.

There are churches with lesbian and gay pastors ;)

U-Ute

06-21-2014, 07:33 PM

chrisrenrut

06-21-2014, 10:22 PM

I guess I just don't understand all the angst.

Religion is a personal and private affair. If you find yourself not agreeing with the religion you believe in, you either accept it as god's word and be happy with it or you don't.

Lobbying for changes in doctrinal changes seems really at odds with the fundamental principle of religion.

The problem is that male-only priesthood is not doctrinal. Even the church's spokeswoman admitted in a recent interview that there are no scriptural references supporting the current "policy".

LA Ute

06-21-2014, 11:20 PM

The problem is that male-only priesthood is not doctrinal. Even the church's spokeswoman admitted in a recent interview that there are no scriptural references supporting the current "policy".

I am not posting this to inflame anyone, only to add to the discussion -- seeking clarity, I guess, as to what the church's position really is. This is what Mike Otterson (a really good guy, whom I know pretty well) wrote in his "An open letter from Otterson: Context missing from discussion about women," which I saw in By Common Consent (http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/05/29/an-open-letter-from-otterson-context-missing-from-discussion-about-women/):

I suppose we do not know all the reasons why Christ did not ordain women as apostles, either in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon, or when the Church was restored in modern times. We only know that he did not, that his leaders today regard this as a doctrinal issue that cannot be compromised, and that agitation from a few Church members is hindering the broader and more productive conversation about the voice, value and visibility of women in the Church that has been going on for years and will certainly continue (the lowering of the age requirement for female missionary service was consistent with this conversation).

Otterson describes this as "a doctrinal issue." To me that doesn't mean it's doctrine that only men hold the priesthood, only that this is a doctrinal issue. Mike's only a spokesman, but I am pretty sure statements like the one above are approved by a member of the First Presidency before they go out. His "open letter" is a good read, even if one does not agree with it. Again, I'm promoting clarity, not agreement.

NorthwestUteFan

06-22-2014, 10:20 AM

This is where the entire discussion goes off the rails. The leadership of the church claim to have sole authority on earth to receive revelation from God. But then they hide behind procedural motions and stare decisis to avoid directly addressing the question. Why not just gather the twelve and first presidency, discuss the topic with an open mind, and then pray together earnestly to request a revelation to obtain an answer? Then at least they could say, "we prayed about this on such-and-such date, and we feel that the time is not right".

And Otterson greatly misstates the situation in the early church. First of all, the bible doesn't really mention Priesthood or Authority in the Mormon sense. Second, it is widely accepted that Junia was an Apostle and was female (and that the name changed around 300CE to the masculine form 'Juno'). Third the 'women should not speak in church' verses in Paul's writings in Corinthians and I Timothy are widely believed to be later scribal additions, or otherwise added later when there was a strong patriarchal movement in the early Christian church.

If Priesthood and Authority in a Mormon sense existed in the New Testament times, then Junia must be accepted as an Apostle.

We then have the problem of Phoebe, who was explicitly discussed in Romans as being a Deacon.

An argument could also be made for Priscilla having some form of Priesthood in the Mormon context.

If we apply the Mormon lens of Dispensations to the Old Testament, with each dispensation containing the fullness of the gospel, then we have to somehow explain away a long list of other women as having some form of priesthood authority: Miriam, Deborah, Huldah (who is described as a prophet), Noahdiah, Isaiah's wife, Abigail, Elisabeth, Mary, Anna, Esther, etc.

Perhaps this is to be expected because the top leaders of the church are businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and CES teachers. We do not have any church leaders with a strong background in theology or divinity, and perhaps that is the reason they refuse to directly ask or answer questions.

They even refuse to recognize that Joseph Smith, the Prophet of this Dispensation, personally ordained women to the priesthood.