Might as well post this here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us...=fb-share&_r=1
This will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
Might as well post this here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us...=fb-share&_r=1
This will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
I'm just really sorry to see it come to this for both of these folks.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I just don't understand the move. It does nothing to help the TBM, as they already viewed the two as heretical. However, for those on the fringe, it confirms the heavy handedness of leadership and destroys what little faith they have left. This is a lose-lose situation.
The church has bungled the OW situation from the start and now they think this will make it better? I think the church is undoing what little good they have garnered from the inoculation essays, by trying to silence these two. This is absolutely the worst move they could have made.
Nailed it.Originally Posted by sancho
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 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.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 think the outcome of those meetings have already been decided.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.
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.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.
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.
Same here, but at the end of the day, it is about as surprising as the sun rising in the east. At least in the case of Kelly. I am not familiar with the gentleman in this story.
So as an outsider I ask, how does this help the LDS church?
It doesn't. Plain and simple.
It doesn't, at least from a PR perspective. But disciplinary decisions are not based on PR concerns, or at least shouldn't be, IMO. I wish the leaders in these cases had not done this. I also wish Dehlin and Kelly hadn't gone straight to the New York Times.
I've met John Dehlin. A very kind man, in my experience, and seemingly very sincere. Last I heard he had decided to return to church activity, but that was a year ago, I think, and I haven't really followed him.
Last edited by LA Ute; 06-11-2014 at 03:42 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
It seems to me the reason it was done was as much PR as anything else. From someone looking through the window it strikes as a "shot across the bow" to others.
Now for my questions. Is it common to do such things via email or letter from someone you've never even met? Seems a rather impersonal and callous way to start such a serious action.
I'm no longer religious, but when I was my church was such a polar opposite from this that it's hard for me to wrap my mind around these things so I'll be asking questions
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.
Last edited by Two Utes; 06-12-2014 at 10:07 AM.
Why not bring it in person?
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/58...women.html.csp
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)
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
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
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.
One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
--Albert Einstein
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
--Richard Dawkins
Be kind to all, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.
--Philo
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
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
John and Kelly already won. There is no bad outcome here for them. I'm so jealous.
One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
--Albert Einstein
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
--Richard Dawkins
Be kind to all, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.
--Philo
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.
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
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; see also Mosiah 26:36).
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.
Last edited by LA Ute; 06-11-2014 at 06:07 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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
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.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
9 pages in 9 days.
You guys are putting in WORK.
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.
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.
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/2014/06/1...on/#more-50710
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote