NY Times: Dehlin and Kelly facing Excommunication

[Viking]

Sadly, Monson sounds to be very much out of commission, per close friends of ours.

This vacuum has allowed Bednar and Oaks to go for the jugular.

This happened in the early nineties, when my uncle was instructed by Packer to excommunicate one of the six.

I think this is evil. Pure evil.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Here is a 16 page brief outlining Kate Kelly's defense against the charge of apostacy. Of course they are legally allowed to do whatever they wish in their private organization, but this brief outlines in detail how they will violate their own rules by excommunicating Kelly.

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Brief-Submitted-by-Nadine-Hansen-in-Defense-of-Kate-Kelly.pdf



The existence of newtechnology cannot turn an action that was not apostasy then into one that is apostasy now. SisterKelly’s actions are definitely “clear,” “open,” “deliberate” and “public,” but they completely failthe definition of “apostasy” because they are not “opposition” to Church leaders. Rather, theyaffirm Church leaders’ leadership by asking them to do what? To pray. If “we believe that Godwill yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” then raisingawareness of current Church practices that diminish women’s equality and asking leaders to seekrevelation cannot possibly be considered “apostasy.”

[Mormon Red Death]

Here is a 16 page brief outlining Kate Kelly's defense against the charge of apostacy. Of course they are legally allowed to do whatever they wish in their private organization, but this brief outlines in detail how they will violate their own rules by excommunicating Kelly.

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Brief-Submitted-by-Nadine-Hansen-in-Defense-of-Kate-Kelly.pdf

You better watch it or you are going on double secret informal probation.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[Rocker Ute]

Here is a 16 page brief outlining Kate Kelly's defense against the charge of apostacy. Of course they are legally allowed to do whatever they wish in their private organization, but this brief outlines in detail how they will violate their own rules by excommunicating Kelly.

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Brief-Submitted-by-Nadine-Hansen-in-Defense-of-Kate-Kelly.pdf

Like Sancho I burned out quickly on this letter.

I do love this attempt to treat this as if it were a legal proceeded governed by the US laws or something (such as citing procedural error as a reason to dismiss the action against her), all while using an outdated version of the Handbook of Instructions as their basis. You've got to imagine how this is all received, I doubt she is helping Kate Kelly's argument in any way. This thing is such a circus.

[LA Ute]

Statement out from Church Public Affairs tonight:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-says-everyone-welcome-room-for-questions?cid=social_20140623_26494926

[UtahsMrSports]

Do people believe that a statement along those lines would have led to Ordain Women closing shop? The statement is unnecessary, as it is implied in the Church's reaction over the past few years. If they make a statement along those lines, I'm feeling inclined to start demanding public prayer statements on the issues that are dear to my heart. I would like Church leaders to pray about shutting down BYU. Unless they explicitly announce that the Lord has approved the teams, I will assume that no heavenly guidance has been given.



Thank goodness. Every once in a while, I am in a ward with people who fancy themselves experts in theology. Without fail, they insufferably muddy up even the most simple gospel discussions with meaningless crap about what some word implies in Syriac.

LOL! Please join my group "Close BYU", a boring, yet unforgettable name.

[UtahsMrSports]

Like Sancho I burned out quickly on this letter.

I do love this attempt to treat this as if it were a legal proceeded governed by the US laws or something (such as citing procedural error as a reason to dismiss the action against her), all while using an outdated version of the Handbook of Instructions as their basis. You've got to imagine how this is all received, I doubt she is helping Kate Kelly's argument in any way. This thing is such a circus.

I know I said I was out of this, but this just keeps getting better and better.

I think "help" is a relative term. "help" her remain a member in good standing? Not in the slightest. Kelly and Nadine are both smart enough to realize that their actions since hearing the news of the disciplinary council have likely pushed Kate out of the church. Everything since has been about drawing attention to their group and themselves. That is their ultimate goal. So in essence, this brief is another thing that will "help" their cause.

An attempt to treat this disciplinary council like a court hearing and get it tossed out due to procedural error might actually show that they aren't taking this as seriously as one would who is trying to remain a member in good standing.

It appears to me that the folks involved in this DC are taking it very seriously and are going to do their due diligence.

[Rocker Ute]

I know I said I was out of this, but this just keeps getting better and better.

I think "help" is a relative term. "help" her remain a member in good standing? Not in the slightest. Kelly and Nadine are both smart enough to realize that their actions since hearing the news of the disciplinary council have likely pushed Kate out of the church. Everything since has been about drawing attention to their group and themselves. That is their ultimate goal. So in essence, this brief is another thing that will "help" their cause.

An attempt to treat this disciplinary council like a court hearing and get it tossed out due to procedural error might actually show that they aren't taking this as seriously as one would who is trying to remain a member in good standing.

It appears to me that the folks involved in this DC are taking it very seriously and are going to do their due diligence.

So you are saying they are lying? I don't know about that, I think Kate Kelly wants to stay in the church and I think they are completely serious.

[UtahsMrSports]

So you are saying they are lying? I don't know about that, I think Kate Kelly wants to stay in the church and I think they are completely serious.

I dont think they are out and out lying, no. I have no doubt that she wants to stay in the church either. I just think that they are both smart enough to know that their current course of action is likely to at some point, bring some form of discipline on her. In the meantime, they are getting their message out and they are getting their groups name all over the headlines. In my opinion, their methods are only going to serve to polarize the Church on this issue and, if anything, the "fight" to get women ordained to the Priesthood is being hindered, not helped.

[Diehard Ute]

Kate has been excommunicated as an apostate per many sources

[Viking]

Kate has been excommunicated as an apostate per many sources

No surprises.

[Diehard Ute]

No surprises.

Nope. Here is Kate's statement

“The decision to force me outside my congregation and community is exceptionally painful. Today is a tragic day for my family and me as we process the many ways this will impact us, both in this life and in the eternities. I love the gospel and the courage of its people. Don’t leave. Stay, and make things better.”

[Viking]

Nope. Here is Kate's statement

“The decision to force me outside my congregation and community is exceptionally painful. Today is a tragic day for my family and me as we process the many ways this will impact us, both in this life and in the eternities. I love the gospel and the courage of its people. Don’t leave. Stay, and make things better.”

My wife is not taking her advice. She's out.

[Sullyute]

I love the gospel and the courage of its people. Don’t leave. Stay, and make things better.” Kate Kelly

She went down swinging and with a quote like that goes out like a martyr. Unfortunately, both sides lose in this situation; Kate loses her membership and the church loses the PR battle. :( It will be interesting to see if the axe falls on the other leaders and members of Ordain Women or if it stops here.

[Diehard Ute]

The people's encyclopedia disagrees with your statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia

I may be very wrong here because I am far out of my element, but this looks like an example of the silliness of academic theology. There is only one small piece of evidence that Junia ever existed - Paul praises her in one verse of the Bible. And now there have been hundreds of scholarly articles and a dozen books claiming to know all kinds of things about her, all written for the purpose of obtaining tenure.

Are you really trying to use "evidence" that people exist when referring to biblical characters?

[Diehard Ute]

I think I was saying that there's not much evidence. Sounds like we agree?

There's not much "evidence" to support the vast majority of the bible.

[Diehard Ute]

I'm still confused - are we disagreeing about something?

Well you were discussing lack of evidence for a specific person. I'm taking that further saying there's a lack of evidence for most of the book ;)

[Scratch]

Well you were discussing lack of evidence for a specific person. I'm taking that further saying there's a lack of evidence for most of the book ;)

This is true, but it's also standard for ancient history. As a history major, I was surprised how something would be taught as settled fact based on a single "authority" which may or may not have been credible.

[UtahsMrSports]

She went down swinging and with a quote like that goes out like a martyr. Unfortunately, both sides lose in this situation; Kate loses her membership and the church loses the PR battle. :( It will be interesting to see if the axe falls on the other leaders and members of Ordain Women or if it stops here.

I imagine some will decide they would rather remain members and let this issue go, if it will cost them their membership. My guess is that some will also become more demonstrative and more vocal. I doubt we are going to see a purge of OW members; but I wouldnt be surprised if some of the higher ups find themselves summoned as well.

[LA Ute]

I don't think anyone wins in this situation.

[Scorcho]

I should be in charge, I could have resolved this issue so easily.

A couple of early Saturday mornings helping the Elders move members in and out and Kate Kelly would have said, "on second thought, I'm good."

:onalimb:

[LA Ute]

Here's the letter she got from her bishop, informing her of her excommunication. Whether you agree with it or not, it is well-written:

http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Notice-of-Decision.pdf

This is a sad and needless outcome. We'll disagree here as to why it's sad and how it could have been avoided, of course.

[justaute]

Was the council held "in her behalf" or "on her behalf"? Those have two different meanings. :)


Here's the letter she got from her bishop, informing her of her excommunication. Whether you agree with it or not, it is well-written:

http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Notice-of-Decision.pdf

This is a sad and needless outcome. We'll disagree here as to why it's sad and how it could have been avoided, of course.

[DrumNFeather]

Here's the letter she got from her bishop, informing her of her excommunication. Whether you agree with it or not, it is well-written:

http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Notice-of-Decision.pdf

This is a sad and needless outcome. We'll disagree here as to why it's sad and how it could have been avoided, of course.
interesting that he offered to change the date...that had not previously been reported.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

interesting that he offered to change the date...that had not previously been reported.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

She mentioned it in some interviews, but said she wouldn't be able to attend due to monetary and family circumstances.

Frankly if the timing was that big of a deal it wouldn't have been started the week she was moving. (And I have yet to hear anyone say her being there would change a thing)

[DrumNFeather]

She mentioned it in some interviews, but said she wouldn't be able to attend due to monetary and family circumstances.

Frankly if the timing was that big of a deal it wouldn't have been started the week she was moving. (And I have yet to hear anyone say her being there would change a thing)
Given the end result, I'm sure it would be hard to convince anyone that it would have mattered. The letter seems to leave that door open a little...but again, nobody will buy that, at least not right now.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

I guess we are hearing two stories. According to the letter her bishop wrote this process and discussions regarding OW began in December. It sounds like there were multiple discussions regarding it up to May 5 that resulted in her informal probation.

Given the seeming shifting story of Kate Kelly and some of the facts she omitted ( like how they offered to do a video conference ) undermines a lot of her credibility. One of the conditions is that she is truthful about what has happened between her and her leaders.

I have to admit that my opinion on her has shifted as this has proceeded, going from very sympathetic to her to really not knowing what to believe about what she has said has happened to her.

If the bishop is to be believed in his letter they have had multiple discussions about OW, despite her claim to the contrary, they've given her ample opportunity - probably more than a standard member would get, and they didn't blindside her with any of this.

But now things make a lot more sense and explain why things proceeded as they did (meaning I think the bishop's narrative follows much more closely to what we saw in the outside than what she said).

Like many have said, there are no winners in this.


I'm curious what other LDS regular attenders have seen. In my congregation there has been no pants or purple wearing ( beyond normal) and it seems that most of the guys kind of shrug their shoulders about whether the women should have the priesthood and the women in our ward are much more vocal and adamant in their opposition to it. I wonder how many agree with OW but are silent, but on the surface it seems the support is non-existent. I should qualify that I live in a ward where people persistently say whatever fool thing they want and rabble rousers abound (myself included) so I don't know how to gauge it.

[Rocker Ute]

She mentioned it in some interviews, but said she wouldn't be able to attend due to monetary and family circumstances.

Frankly if the timing was that big of a deal it wouldn't have been started the week she was moving. (And I have yet to hear anyone say her being there would change a thing)

If you read the bishop's letter you'll learn that this began back in December. He also offered to video conference with her which she apparently declined.

From my viewpoint she hasn't been completely honest about some things and downright deceptive on other things. Ironically she has been the only one disclosing details and really didn't need to fabricate things like she did, she would have had plenty of sympathy without it.

I bet with all the publicity and public statements made around this thing by her and her supporters all of you law-talking guys would be able to tear this 'case' apart.

[Diehard Ute]

If you read the bishop's letter you'll learn that this began back in December. He also offered to video conference with her which she apparently declined.

From my viewpoint she hasn't been completely honest about some things and downright deceptive on other things. Ironically she has been the only one disclosing details and really didn't need to fabricate things like she did, she would have had plenty of sympathy without it.

I bet with all the publicity and public statements made around this thing by her and her supporters all of you law-talking guys would be able to tear this 'case' apart.


Reality is the letter is a letter. To say they're being truthful and Kate isn't is a poor position.

We don't know who is being truthful. And, in my world, there's usually 3 stories. The two each side tell and the truth. We'll never know the truth. People NEVER recount things 100% accurately when they're involved because everyone has some sort of bias, it's not intentional, it's just the way we work.

LA is right....neither side wins much of anything.

And I think the fact that it began in December, if true, leaves me scratching my head even more that the true serious "actions" were started when it was know she was moving. You must admit that looks bad no matter how you look at it.

[Rocker Ute]

Reality is the letter is a letter. To say they're being truthful and Kate isn't is a poor position.

We don't know who is being truthful. And, in my world, there's usually 3 stories. The two each side tell and the truth. We'll never know the truth. People NEVER recount things 100% accurately when they're involved because everyone has some sort of bias, it's not intentional, it's just the way we work.

LA is right....neither side wins much of anything.

And I think the fact that it began in December, if true, leaves me scratching my head even more that the true serious "actions" were started when it was know she was moving. You must admit that looks bad no matter how you look at it.

You are a cop, sit back and look at what has transpired and who is saying what. When you arrive on a call who do you believe, the guy with the shifting story or the guy whose story is consistent with the evidence.

Now the bishop may have safely assumed she would publish the letter, but really it was intended for her, and the fact that he has a narrative that makes sense particularly if you know the nuances surrounding these types of things I'm inclined to believe him.

I agree that we are biased and certainly this bishop is too. I can see how he could have what he thought was a pointed and personal discussion with her and she thought she didn't have any relationship with him.

You and I are biased too, my guess is there is little the bishop could say or prove that would sway your opinion, and when I look at what she has done I have a hard time trusting her.

The problem though is her narrative has changed a lot, and if you've followed this before any of this happened and when she was questioned about threats of disciplinary actions or what her church leaders thought she would always say she had a great relationship with her bishop and they had discussed it all openly. That changed to being ignored and no relationship... The list goes on.

[UtahsMrSports]

You are a cop, sit back and look at what has transpired and who is saying what. When you arrive on a call who do you believe, the guy with the shifting story or the guy whose story is consistent with the evidence.

Now the bishop may have safely assumed she would publish the letter, but really it was intended for her, and the fact that he has a narrative that makes sense particularly if you know the nuances surrounding these types of things I'm inclined to believe him.

I agree that we are biased and certainly this bishop is too. I can see how he could have what he thought was a pointed and personal discussion with her and she thought she didn't have any relationship with him.

You and I are biased too, my guess is there is little the bishop could say or prove that would sway your opinion, and when I look at what she has done I have a hard time trusting her.

The problem though is her narrative has changed a lot, and if you've followed this before any of this happened and when she was questioned about threats of disciplinary actions or what her church leaders thought she would always say she had a great relationship with her bishop and they had discussed it all openly. That changed to being ignored and no relationship... The list goes on.

Nailed it.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The people's encyclopedia disagrees with your statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia

I may be very wrong here because I am far out of my element, but this looks like an example of the silliness of academic theology. There is only one small piece of evidence that Junia ever existed - Paul praises her in one verse of the Bible. And now there have been hundreds of scholarly articles and a dozen books claiming to know all kinds of things about her, all written for the purpose of obtaining tenure.

You apparently missed the first paragraph of your link on Wiki: "That Junia was a woman is seldom contested today among Christian theologians".

My point was that his statement was grossly ignorant of early Christian history, which is understandable because we Mormons project our current, modern beliefs on every previous historical timeframe. Perhaps Junia was a Relief Society President...

But his statement was also disingenuous (or perhaps he is also ignorant on this matter), because ordaining women to the priesthood is very well documented in mormon church history. The practice was phased out by Joseph F. Smith in 1908.

I am sure nobody will read this chapter because it was written by a evil, heathen, apostate, Stanford-loving, excommunicated heretic, Michael Quinn. But this chapter very clearly demonstrates that the practices of ordaining women to the priesthood, and of women giving priesthood blessings, was very prevalent during much of the first century of the LDS church's existence.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171

Read that chapter, then re-read the statements by church spokesmen (and women), and it is a simple matter to recognize the Gaslighting, unintentional though it may be.

[U-Ute]

Nope. Here is Kate's statement

“The decision to force me outside my congregation and community is exceptionally painful. Today is a tragic day for my family and me as we process the many ways this will impact us, both in this life and in the eternities. I love the gospel and the courage of its people. Don’t leave. Stay, and make things better.”

Obviously not, otherwise she wouldn't be fighting to change it.

Religion is not a democracy.

[Two Utes]

Obviously not, otherwise she wouldn't be fighting to change it.

Religion is not a democracy.


Yep. She can't have it both ways. If she "loves" the gospel, she'll fall in line. If she thinks the church is an "abuser" then should should do what a strong woman would do and walk away--and tell others to walk away. People who really feel they were being manipulated, abused and lied to have walked away.

But, if she walks, she loses a lot of her audience. And she clearly likes the audience.

[Scratch]

Yep. She can't have it both ways. If she "loves" the gospel, she'll fall in line. If she thinks the church is an "abuser" then should should do what a strong woman would do and walk away--and tell others to walk away. People who really feel they were being manipulated, abused and lied to have walked away.

But, if she walks, she loses a lot of her audience. And she clearly likes the audience.


She's going to lose a lot of her audience not just because she's no longer a member, but also because as this has played out my take is that she has lost a lot of sympathy and support. I know that I had a lot of sympathy for her and her position, but the more I've been exposed to her and her approach that sympathy has evaporated as I've become convinced that this whole thing is more about Kate Kelly than it is about the LDS church, women in the church, or anything else.

[Sullyute]

Obviously not, otherwise she wouldn't be fighting to change it.

Religion is not a democracy.

First, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the LDS Church are not the same thing. She can love the Gospel, but still want change in the Church. Second, religion can be argued to be a democracy as most people simply vote with their feet, but it is really much closer to autocracy or aristocracy of men claiming they speak with or for God.


If she "loves" the gospel, she'll fall in line.

:clap: Love this response. How dare a woman draw attention to the inequality in the Church. How dare you suggest that there are ways to improve the Church that we haven't thought of. How dare you challenge the status quo by peacefully asking to enter a building to hear us speak about God. How dare you disregard press releases from our public relations department. Yes, falling in line is exactly what we want you to do.

[U-Ute]

:clap: Love this response. How dare a woman draw attention to the inequality in the Church. How dare you suggest that their are ways to improve the Church that we haven't thought of. How dare you challenge the status quo by peacefully asking to enter a building to hear us speak about God. How dare you disregard press releases from our public relations department. Yes, falling in line is exactly what we want you to do.

And yet you agree that it is an authoritarian organization and have seen what happens if you dare to speak out and bring attention to it.

As Two-Utes says: to be a member, you can't have it both ways. You either accept the rules, or you walk out. She chose the latter, but in a passive-aggressive way of making them throw her out.

Either way, nobody is saying she can't practice the religion. If she loves it, she can still practice it. Albeit, not with the Mormon Church's blessing. She can still live her life according to the LDS teachings and practices.

[chrisrenrut]

My wife and I were discussing her conundrum last night.

If she is a 100% true beleive in the truthfulness of the church, then she accepts that those called to their positions were done so by inspiration, and have the authority to set the policies and enforce them. Her complaints that her eternal marriage and salvation are in jeopardy are then on her head, as it is her actions that have brought her to this point.

If she doesn't beleive that the authority figures (local and/or central) are correct with their policies and actions, then what they have done to her is a traves-sham-mockery, and her eternal marriage and salvation are not in jeopardy, and the Higher Judge will overrule them in the hearafter. But until then, she is removed form the traditions, rites, and ceremonies that she is used to in her earthly worship, which is definitely something to be sad about.

The court of public opinion has the worst possible jury selection process. But as one of those jurors, I agree with Rocker and Scratch in that I was initially very sympathetic to her cause, but have become less so as her actions and more information has come to light. Her motives have become suspect, . I am still sympathetic to the OW cause, and think that one day soon we will have an Official Declaration 3 added to the D & C.

[UtahsMrSports]

:clap: Love this response. How dare a woman draw attention to the inequality in the Church. How dare you suggest that there are ways to improve the Church that we haven't thought of. How dare you challenge the status quo by peacefully asking to enter a building to hear us speak about God. How dare you disregard press releases from our public relations department. Yes, falling in line is exactly what we want you to do.


This, right here, is where the entire conversation falls apart (I am not blaming you or people with your viewpoint, btw). In the mind of KK and her followers/sympathizers, "suggest(ing) ways to improve the Church" is the extent of what she is doing. In the minds of church leaders, she is going beyond that. She is not making a "suggestion"; she is making a demand. And beyond that, she is rallying people behind her with this "demand".

Again, what KK and co. see as attempting to "peacefully.....enter a building" church leaders see as an aggressive demand that causes a distraction from Gospel learning.

Will the LDS women ever receive the Priesthood? Maybe. I am certainly open minded enough to think it could happen. Will it happen because of some agitators within the church? Lol. no, it wont.

I also want to add that we have seen some developments with regard to women in the church. All of these changes are great and can be, at least partially, credited to KK and her desire to raise her concerns.

So, at the end of the day, I am torn on KK. She has helped to inspire some changes. She has also, through dishonesty, brought negative light to the Church she claims to love. That is not opinion, its in her own words. I sincerely hope that she comes back.

[Two Utes]

First, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the LDS Church are not the same thing. She can love the Gospel, but still want change in the Church. Second, religion can be argued to be a democracy as most people simply vote with their feet, but it is really much closer to autocracy or aristocracy of men claiming they speak with or for God.



:clap: Love this response. How dare a woman draw attention to the inequality in the Church. How dare you suggest that there are ways to improve the Church that we haven't thought of. How dare you challenge the status quo by peacefully asking to enter a building to hear us speak about God. How dare you disregard press releases from our public relations department. Yes, falling in line is exactly what we want you to do.

Whatever. Get on your high horse and ride baby.

I chose not to fall in line. I don't play this ridiculous game of "I have a testimony" and then claim my church is an "abuser". She is taking a ridiculous position that makes no sense. Why?

Keep riding.

[LA Ute]

This is a great essay by a guy who was anything but an iron rodder:

Eugene England: Why the Church Is As True As the Gospel (http://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel)

The whole thing is great, but this is my favorite paragraph:


In the life of the true Church, there are constant opportunities for all to serve, especially to learn to serve people we would not nor*mally choose to serve—or possibly even associate with—and thus opportunities to learn to love unconditionally. There is constant encouragement, even pressure, to be “active”: to have a calling” and thus to have to grapple with relationships and management, with other peoples' ideas and wishes, their feel*ings and failures; to attend classes and meetings and to have to listen to other people’s sometimes misinformed or prejudiced notions and to have to make some constructive response; to have leaders and occasionally to be hurt by their weakness and blindness, even unrighteous dominion; and then to be made a leader and find that you, too, with all the best intentions, can be weak and blind and unrighteous. Church involvement teaches us compassion and patience as well as courage and dis*cipline. It makes us responsible for the personal and marital, physical, and spiritual welfare of people we may not already love (or may even heartily dislike), and thus we learn to love them. It stretches and challenges us, though disappointed and exasperated, in ways we would not otherwise choose to be— and thus gives us a chance to be made better than we might choose to be, but ultimately need and want to be.

[LA Ute]

By the way, I am just now focusing on KK's legal specialty: "International human rights attorney." That is a pretty lofty description. Does anyone know is she's with a law firm, or what she does?

[Sullyute]

I will absolutely agree that OW took a big risk in trying to get attention from leaders and members and that approach has backfired, at least personally for some of them. However it seems like the attention is on OW’s tactics, but I don’t see the fundamental issue of inequality being addressed (not priesthood, but equality). The church has made the following statements recently though the PR Dept.


In the Church, we want everyone to feel welcome, safe and valued, and of course, there is room to ask questions. But how we ask is just as important as what we ask. We should not try to dictate to God what is right for His Church.


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.

So the church seems to be fine with the questions, but it is how we ask that they seem to have an issue with. That is a fair stance to take. The problem arises when the people who have questions (issues with cultural inequality) have no way of getting those questions to the leaders with the answers (or the power to make changes to those cultural issues).


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.

Not sure why this takes several years as it seems pretty simple to me. First you find the areas where there appears to be gender inequality, then you decide on each one of those if it is doctrinal or cultural. If it is cultural, then change it. If it is doctrinal, then no dice. If there is any doubt, then the brethren ask God about it.

It really seems like there is a lot of middle ground that is being missed as both sides fire long range press releases and new articles at each other.

[Sullyute]

I chose not to fall in line. I don't play this ridiculous game of "I have a testimony" and then claim my church is an "abuser". She is taking a ridiculous position that makes no sense. Why?

I think that Pres. Uchtdorf words may answer a part of that...


[R]egardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!

In spite of our human imperfections, I am confident that you will find among the members of this Church many of the finest souls this world has to offer. The Church of Jesus Christ seems to attract the kind and the caring, the honest and the industrious.

If you expect to find perfect people here, you will be disappointed. But if you seek the pure doctrine of Christ, the word of God “which healeth the wounded soul,”9 (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng#9-10791_000_17uchtdorf) and the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost, then here you will find them. In this age of waning faith—in this age when so many feel distanced from heaven’s embrace—here you will find a people who yearn to know and draw closer to their Savior by serving God and fellowmen, just like you. Come, join with us!

[Applejack]

By the way, I am just now focusing on KK's legal specialty: "International human rights attorney." That is a pretty lofty description. Does anyone know is she's with a law firm, or what she does?

I've wondered that myself. An article I saw today called her a "former human right attorney." http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0623/Mormon-church-excommunicates-prominent-US-activist-Kate-Kelly

[SoCalPat]

The Church has acted out of expediency before with polygamy and blacks getting the priesthood. The former was to earn statehood for Utah; the latter because it didn't want to get into Hitler-like appropriations of determining how "black" a member was in third-world and emerging nations where the Church was growing and needed local leadership to function. As it has become more apparent the stigma that has been placed on gay men and women, the Church has at least softened its hard-line approach toward homosexuality and toned down the rhetoric from its top leaders. Regardless of the motivation behind these changes, they were prudent and met with near universal approval (at least with polygamy and blacks getting the priesthood).

I don't doubt similar moves will be taken to appease if not outright satisfy the OW movement in the future, but I have no idea what will bring it on. What exists out there that could be used against the Church to compromise its mission should it insist on not offering the priesthood to women? The easy answer is revocation of its tax-exempt status, but that brings about super-thorny First Amendment issues that I'm sure neither side is eager to engage in.

[Applejack]

The Church has acted out of expediency before with polygamy and blacks getting the priesthood. The former was to earn statehood for Utah; the latter because it didn't want to get into Hitler-like appropriations of determining how "black" a member was in third-world and emerging nations where the Church was growing and needed local leadership to function. As it has become more apparent the stigma that has been placed on gay men and women, the Church has at least softened its hard-line approach toward homosexuality and toned down the rhetoric from its top leaders. Regardless of the motivation behind these changes, they were prudent and met with near universal approval (at least with polygamy and blacks getting the priesthood).

I don't doubt similar moves will be taken to appease if not outright satisfy the OW movement in the future, but I have no idea what will bring it on. What exists out there that could be used against the Church to compromise its mission should it insist on not offering the priesthood to women? The easy answer is revocation of its tax-exempt status, but that brings about super-thorny First Amendment issues that I'm sure neither side is eager to engage in.

I don't remember the revelations on polygamy or blacks and the priesthood, but from what I've read, the polygamy ban was far from universally approved.

[SoCalPat]

I don't remember the revelations on polygamy or blacks and the priesthood, but from what I've read, the polygamy ban was far from universally approved.

It got Utah into the Union and kept Church leaders from being imprisoned and living in hiding, which is all that really mattered. From a standpoint of appeasing your critics and accomplishing an objective, it was universally approved.

[LA Ute]

It got Utah into the Union and kept Church leaders from being imprisoned and living in hiding, which is all that really mattered. From a standpoint of appeasing your critics and accomplishing an objective, it was universally approved.

The original splinter groups (polygamists) all came out of that. I think that's what AJ meant. (Edit: Not to mention the folks that were in Mexico.) But I agree, the approval was generally overwhelming.

[Applejack]

The splinter groups (polygamists) all came out of that. I think that's what AJ meant. But I agree, the approval was generally overwhelming.

Splinter groups are part of it. But remember, it also took two manifestos to really get the point across that polygamy was out. And even after that, numerous higher-ups in the church were disciplined (some ex-ed) for continuing to acquire plural wives after Manifesto #2. Getting rid of polygamy was a HUGE shock to many in the church, which is understandable because they had been told of the fundamental nature of the practice for over half a century.

It's universally approved today, that's for sure. But back then, I'm not even sure you can say that it was "mostly" approved when the first manifesto came down.

[LA Ute]

Splinter groups are part of it. But remember, it also took two manifestos to really get the point across that polygamy was out. And even after that, numerous higher-ups in the church were disciplined (some ex-ed) for continuing to acquire plural wives after Manifesto #2. Getting rid of polygamy was a HUGE shock to many in the church, which is understandable because they had been told of the fundamental nature of the practice for over half a century.

It's universally approved today, that's for sure. But back then, I'm not even sure you can say that it was "mostly" approved when the first manifesto came down.

Yeah, there was a lot of dust flying for a few years after the Manifesto. I'm sure it was a wrenching time for many.

[USS Utah]

There is a difference between honestly asking questions and questioning the answers already being given. And many people are even allowed to remain in full membership when they do that.

http://shadanderson.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/why-would-the-church-of-jesus-christ-excommunication-some-of-its-members/

[Sullyute]

There is a difference between honestly asking questions and questioning the answers already being given.


Yes, there is a difference between asking questions because you want an answer and asking questions because you have an answer you wish to bring more attention to.

I agree, however that does not mean that the latter is inherently wrong or bad.

[Two Utes]

By the way, I am just now focusing on KK's legal specialty: "International human rights attorney." That is a pretty lofty description. Does anyone know is she's with a law firm, or what she does?

Now you are just taking pot shots and you know it. Kind of like "International man of mystery"?

[LA Ute]

Now you are just taking pot shots and you know it. Kind of like "International man of mystery"?

I was warming up to take a pot shot, depending on the information I got. I'm always skeptical about lawyers' self-descriptions when they seem a bit grandiose.

[UtahsMrSports]

I guess not, but I get tired of the "We're just asking questions" defense when there is clearly much more to it than that.

"we're just asking questions!" "we were all very shocked when Kate was excommunicated"

this is either the least self-aware group on the planet, or one of the most disingenuous. Combine that with the ever-changing story of what happened and this group has all the makings of a group that will fade into the background soon enough.

[LA Ute]

"we're just asking questions!" "we were all very shocked when Kate was excommunicated"

this is either the least self-aware group on the planet, or one of the most disingenuous. Combine that with the ever-changing story of what happened and this group has all the makings of a group that will fade into the background soon enough.

Hey, that reminds me of a question I want to ask you: How long have you been beating your wife, anyway?

It's just a question. ;)

[Two Utes]

ON MSN front page

http://www.msn.com/


Fascinating how interested the country is in this stuff.

[Sullyute]

I guess not, but I get tired of the "We're just asking questions" defense when there is clearly much more to it than that.

I agree that there is more to it. So let me ask you a couple multi-part questions and please give me an honest answer. Also let me know whether you think it is based on doctrine or culture or unsure.

1) Is the priesthood "exercised" when deacons pass the sacrament? 1A) If no, then why can't 12 year old girls pass the sacrament? 1B) If yes, do women and girls exercise the same priesthood when they pass the sacrament trays along the pew? 1Ba) If yes, then why can't 12 year girls pass the sacrament? 1Bb) If no, please explain why a boy carrying a tray of bread is exercising the priesthood but a girl carrying a tray of bread is not?

2) Is the priesthood "exercised" for the following callings: sunday school president, ward clerk, executive secretary, financial clerk, assistant ward clerk, stake sports director. 2A) If yes, explain how 2B) If no, what forbids a women from serving in any of these roles?

These are honest questions, but there is definitely more to it as the theme is pretty obvious.

[jrj84105]

If the church did an about face and gave women the priesthood, would more people leave based on that decision than are now leaving based on the current stance? I really have no clue how entrenched peole are in the view that women should NOT have the priesthood. It seems like many people are more opposed to open dissent then they are to the prospects of women priesthood holders.

[U-Ute]

ON MSN front page

http://www.msn.com/


Fascinating how interested the country is in this stuff.

Americans love underdogs.

[Rocker Ute]

By the way, I am just now focusing on KK's legal specialty: "International human rights attorney." That is a pretty lofty description. Does anyone know is she's with a law firm, or what she does?

I'll admit after reading what she wrote and the other briefs I thought to myself, "These people can't actually be attorneys. I could compose an argument better than that." It seemed to be on the Lionel Hutz level of legal competency or maybe they were too emotionally invested fell into that whole, "If you represent yourself you have a fool for a client" thing.

[USS Utah]

I agree that there is more to it. So let me ask you a couple multi-part questions and please give me an honest answer. Also let me know whether you think it is based on doctrine or culture or unsure.

1) Is the priesthood "exercised" when deacons pass the sacrament? 1A) If no, then why can't 12 year old girls pass the sacrament? 1B) If yes, do women and girls exercise the same priesthood when they pass the sacrament trays along the pew? 1Ba) If yes, then why can't 12 year girls pass the sacrament? 1Bb) If no, please explain why a boy carrying a tray of bread is exercising the priesthood but a girl carrying a tray of bread is not?

2) Is the priesthood "exercised" for the following callings: sunday school president, ward clerk, executive secretary, financial clerk, assistant ward clerk, stake sports director. 2A) If yes, explain how 2B) If no, what forbids a women from serving in any of these roles?

These are honest questions, but there is definitely more to it as the theme is pretty obvious.

I think there is a reason the Aaronic Priesthood is called the preperatory priesthood. My guess is that there is no real exercise of priesthood authority until one becomes a priest and can baptize and bless the sacrament.

I've been a Sunday School secretary. I don't think I needed priesthood authority to ring the bell or pass out a sheet in Gospel Doctrine so those present could sign the roll.

My wife and I are currently the stake baptism coordinators in our stake. We prepare and print the program, pass out the white jumpers, and wash them after, and do other coordinating things. They only time priesthood authority is required is when I act as an extra witness on behalf of the stake.

[U-Ute]

This is difficult to communicate appropriately, so please take it in the spirit of a friend trying to help his buddy out:

This thread is more fuel to the belief that Mormons are one of the more insecure groups of people around.

[USS Utah]

This is difficult to communicate appropriately, so please take it in the spirit of a friend trying to help his buddy out:

This thread is more fuel to the belief that Mormons are one of the more insecure groups of people around.

Most people become at least a little insecure when it their ox that is being gored. Call it human nature.

I have found that with those who suggest to one group that they should lighten up, they do not do any better when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Viking]

This got me misty eyed.

http://jeffbenedict.com/index.php/blog/35-blog/378-maybe-ill-meet-a-girl

[U-Ute]

Most people become at least a little insecure when it their ox that is being gored. Call it human nature.

I have found that with those who suggest to one group that they should lighten up, they do not do any better when the shoe is on the other foot.

Fair enough. I just feel the indirect personal attacks are beneath you guys. What's happened is over, and you should let bygones be bygones...

That being said, I have thoroughly enjoyed the theological discussions of the history of priesthood ordainment. That has been fascinating to me. You all should stick with the theory and history of it. That's much more the style of this group.

[LA Ute]

This got me misty eyed.

http://jeffbenedict.com/index.php/blog/35-blog/378-maybe-ill-meet-a-girl

Really a great piece. Doesn't really fit in this thread but even so, you may remain a member here in full fellowship.

[Sullyute]

I think there is a reason the Aaronic Priesthood is called the preperatory priesthood. My guess is that there is no real exercise of priesthood authority until one becomes a priest and can baptize and bless the sacrament.

I've been a Sunday School secretary. I don't think I needed priesthood authority to ring the bell or pass out a sheet in Gospel Doctrine so those present could sign the roll.

My wife and I are currently the stake baptism coordinators in our stake. We prepare and print the program, pass out the white jumpers, and wash them after, and do other coordinating things. They only time priesthood authority is required is when I act as an extra witness on behalf of the stake.

What authority are you exercising other than making sure that the verbage is correct and the person gets thoroughly wet? You don't say anything. You are not touching anybody, the person doing the baptism doesn't say "Having the authority of Jesus Christ WE baptize you...."

This goes back to my point that both sides seem to be unwilling to move to middle ground. There is so much that can change that would not require a "priesthood office" but would still allow women greater service opportunities. The church has made some changes, hopefully more are in the works.

[Scratch]

If the church did an about face and gave women the priesthood, would more people leave based on that decision than are now leaving based on the current stance? I really have no clue how entrenched peole are in the view that women should NOT have the priesthood. It seems like many people are more opposed to open dissent then they are to the prospects of women priesthood holders.

Very, very few, if any. I think the most common understanding is that there is nothing doctrinal standing in the way of women holding the priesthood and that God instructing his prophets to extend the priesthood to women would not be seen to contradict doctrine. Rather, I think most view it as a policy that could be changed, particularly given the history of women exercising the priesthood and the 1978 extension of the priesthood.

[USS Utah]

Fair enough. I just feel the indirect personal attacks are beneath you guys. What's happened is over, and you should let bygones be bygones...

I hope that I have not made any attacks, indirect or otherwise. If I have, I apologize to all.

[USS Utah]

What authority are you exercising other than making sure that the verbage is correct and the person gets thoroughly wet? You don't say anything. You are not touching anybody, the person doing the baptism doesn't say "Having the authority of Jesus Christ WE baptize you...."

This goes back to my point that both sides seem to be unwilling to move to middle ground. There is so much that can change that would not require a "priesthood office" but would still allow women greater service opportunities. The church has made some changes, hopefully more are in the works.

I'm guessing it has to do with that "on behalf of the stake" part -- read, stake presidency and high council. I think they thought it was important because they asked me to wear a white shirt.

I also make sure the last baptizer pulls the plug on the font.

It is not up to me to move anywhere. What happens in this area is above my pay grade.

[U-Ute]

I hope that I have not made any attacks, indirect or otherwise. If I have, I apologize to all.


:cheers:

[SoCalPat]

What authority are you exercising other than making sure that the verbage is correct and the person gets thoroughly wet? You don't say anything. You are not touching anybody, the person doing the baptism doesn't say "Having the authority of Jesus Christ WE baptize you...."

This goes back to my point that both sides seem to be unwilling to move to middle ground. There is so much that can change that would not require a "priesthood office" but would still allow women greater service opportunities. The church has made some changes, hopefully more are in the works.

You can call it a priesthood office or you can call it a service opportunity, but I find it perverse that only male figures within the Church can discuss with and question women about transgressions of a sexual nature and act "accordingly" upon them in either handing out punishment or guiding them along the path to repentance. Given the sensitive nature of such topics and the huge weight they carry in one's standing in the Church (and, presumably, the frequency with which they arrive on the Bishop's doorstep), it's impossible to justify that only men are involved in these matters.

[Rocker Ute]

Very, very few, if any. I think the most common understanding is that there is nothing doctrinal standing in the way of women holding the priesthood and that God instructing his prophets to extend the priesthood to women would not be seen to contradict doctrine. Rather, I think most view it as a policy that could be changed, particularly given the history of women exercising the priesthood and the 1978 extension of the priesthood.

Not entirely true by my estimation, and I could get into the differences between priesthood ordination and ordination (for example, to what office were these women ordained if they received the priesthood - something that is always set - there may be some grey area here and many more).

But there is a doctrinal challenge to women holding the priesthood that needs to be overcome. In temple ceremonies we learn that receiving the Melchizedek priesthood is a required ordinance for salvation, to date it isn't for women. If women were to now receive the priesthood the church would have to say one of the following: 1. It is necessary for men but not women; 2. It isn't actually necessary for anyone; or 3. It is necessary for everyone and we need to go and redo vicarious work for all women.

A significant hurdle.

So the question is, if what Dallin H Oaks said is correct and all people men and women with callings act under the authority of the priesthood, and hence have priesthood authority is it possible to be ordained to heal the sick, anoint, etc without actually 'holding the priesthood' but acting under its authority?

If that is correct then it would seem it is happening today and it would seem to open the door for more equality in women leadership that goes beyond the radical move of wondering why a woman can't be a Sunday school president.

I think there is room for lots more without actual priesthood ordination or holding priesthood keys.

Wait, what is this letter from my Stake President. Hmmm... I'm being cited for apostasy for my involvement in this thread and utefans.net.

Makes sense...

[LA Ute]

Interesting (and whimsical) take here.

http://journalofamadman.com/great-mormon-feud-2014-woman-wants-priesthood/

[NorthwestUteFan]

http://i.imgur.com/GFKvNiB.jpg

Interesting dichotomy.

[Rocker Ute]

http://i.imgur.com/GFKvNiB.jpg



Interesting dichotomy.


If that was just a question, I'd hate to see when protesting, media pushing and recruiting kicked in. Actually maybe a more apt analogy would be when Eliza Snow and company convinced Brigham Young to restart the Relief Society he had shut down.

[UtahsMrSports]

Several have said that in this situation that there was no winner. Everyone lost.

I disagree. There was a huge winner in this story: The Salt Lake Tribune.

Currently at sltrib.com, three of the top 4 most popular stories are about OW. For a dying paper in a dying industry, this story has been pure gold.

[Diehard Ute]

Several have said that in this situation that there was no winner. Everyone lost.

I disagree. There was a huge winner in this story: The Salt Lake Tribune.

Currently at sltrib.com, three of the top 4 most popular stories are about OW. For a dying paper in a dying industry, this story has been pure gold.

You must read the D News if you're calling the Trib the dying paper.

[UtahsMrSports]

You must read the D News if you're calling the Trib the dying paper.

Lol. When it comes to their treatment of the LDS church, I find both papers to be about worthless. I read both to get their sports takes, and thats about it.

As for which is the dying paper..........which paper has gone through two massive layoffs in a 6 month time period? which one has a big lawsuit ahead of it because its owner sold it out to the other paper in town?

This isn't opinion, this is fact. The trib needs help to survive. And its too bad.

[Applejack]

Lol. When it comes to their treatment of the LDS church, I find both papers to be about worthless. I read both to get their sports takes, and thats about it.

As for which is the dying paper..........which paper has gone through two massive layoffs in a 6 month time period? which one has a big lawsuit ahead of it because its owner sold it out to the other paper in town?

This isn't opinion, this is fact. The trib needs help to survive. And its too bad.

I'm not sure which paper is in better shape financially, but I don't think you can call the DeezNews a paper anymore. It is more like a blog.

[Diehard Ute]

Lol. When it comes to their treatment of the LDS church, I find both papers to be about worthless. I read both to get their sports takes, and thats about it.

As for which is the dying paper..........which paper has gone through two massive layoffs in a 6 month time period? which one has a big lawsuit ahead of it because its owner sold it out to the other paper in town?

This isn't opinion, this is fact. The trib needs help to survive. And its too bad.

Yet the Trib still has bigger circulation and ad revenues. The D News has played a game and is ahead by basically scamming the hedge fund that bought the tribune. They've used circulation numbers which include their Sunday national edition that's included with many other papers whether the subscriber wants it or not.

To say the Tribune is dying is a false statement. To say they have a fight on their hands due to poor absentee ownership and a rival willing to do anything to put them out of business is far more accurate.

[concerned]

Yet the Trib still has bigger circulation and ad revenues. The D News has played a game and is ahead by basically scamming the hedge fund that bought the tribune. They've used circulation numbers which include their Sunday national edition that's included with many other papers whether the subscriber wants it or not.

To say the Tribune is dying is a false statement. To say they have a fight on their hands due to poor absentee ownership and a rival willing to do anything to put them out of business is far more accurate.

All the Trib layoffs have come at the end of the quarter. June 30 is the next quarter. many employees are scared to death thaf the paper wont make it past next week.

[UtahsMrSports]

Yet the Trib still has bigger circulation and ad revenues. The D News has played a game and is ahead by basically scamming the hedge fund that bought the tribune. They've used circulation numbers which include their Sunday national edition that's included with many other papers whether the subscriber wants it or not.

To say the Tribune is dying is a false statement. To say they have a fight on their hands due to poor absentee ownership and a rival willing to do anything to put them out of business is far more accurate.

You are talking past me. I am not a des news fan. I am not cheering for the trib to go out of business, I think we need two voices here in Utah. Unless they win their lawsuit, they are in trouble. fair enough?

[Diehard Ute]

All the Trib layoffs have come at the end of the quarter. June 30 is the next quarter. many employees are scared to death thaf the paper wont make it past next week.

Well there are hurdles. But there are also parties who want to buy the Trib, but due to legal issues cannot at this time.

[Diehard Ute]

You are talking past me. I am not a des news fan. I am not cheering for the trib to go out of business, I think we need two voices here in Utah. Unless they win their lawsuit, they are in trouble. fair enough?

That's fair, although I believe there are people who will manage to buy the Trib to keep it going. It's just a process that's not anywhere close to simple.

[UtahsMrSports]

I'm not sure which paper is in better shape financially, but I don't think you can call the DeezNews a paper anymore. It is more like a blog.

I 100% completely agree with this.

[USS Utah]

Reading UteFans.Net did give me the impression that the Trib was in danger.

[Diehard Ute]

Reading UteFans.Net did give me the impression that the Trib was in danger.

There's no doubt the D News is trying to put it out if business and the current Trib owners are oblivious to that.

[LA Ute]

I 100% completely agree with this.

Yes, a blog with mostly guest bloggers writing and very light editing. I don't pay close attention to either paper but I like the Trib for sports.

I keep reading that the DNews is out to get the Trib and put it out of business. Seriously (and I have no dog in this fight) -- what evidence is there of that? Such a strategy eems inconsistent with the DNews' plans to be a national online paper for Mormons. (Assuming I have that right.)

[UtahsMrSports]

Yes, a blog with mostly guest bloggers writing and very light editing. I don't pay close attention to either paper but I like the Trib for sports.

I keep reading that the DNews is out to get the Trib and put it out of business. Seriously (and I have no dog in this fight) -- what evidence is there of that? Such a strategy eems inconsistent with the DNews' plans to be a national online paper for Mormons. (Assuming I have that right.)

The Des News made a deal with the Trib's parent company where they get the majority of the revenue generated by the two papers combined (58-60 percent I want to say; may be higher) in exchange for a big up front payment.

[Diehard Ute]

Yes, a blog with mostly guest bloggers writing and very light editing. I don't pay close attention to either paper but I like the Trib for sports.

I keep reading that the DNews is out to get the Trib and put it out of business. Seriously (and I have no dog in this fight) -- what evidence is there of that? Such a strategy eems inconsistent with the DNews' plans to be a national online paper for Mormons. (Assuming I have that right.)

The D News and the Tribune share ad and printing services through a joint operating agreement.

Until this year the Tribune received 58% of the revenue to the News 42%, this was based on circulation.

This year the hedge fund that owns the Trib now (based in New York I believe, and for all intents and purposes an absentee owner) agreed to a proposal from the D News to change the agreement. In exchange for cash that went to the hedge fund, the ad/printing agreement switched to 70% to the D News and 30% to the Tribune. There was also a change that required "written consent" from the D News before the Trib can be sold, and they have the right to withold that consent.

The D News has claimed they have a growing circulation and thus deserve the new deal. But analysis has shown they're using smoke and mirrors to bolster Sunday distribution (by including their "national" edition with other papers)

The hedge fund also sold the Tribunes stake in the printing press.

[NorthwestUteFan]

If that was just a question, I'd hate to see when protesting, media pushing and recruiting kicked in. Actually maybe a more apt analogy would be when Eliza Snow and company convinced Brigham Young to restart the Relief Society he had shut down.

Pillow talk has a way of producing revelatory results.

IIRC it was Joseph Smith who shut down the Relief Society when they became an anti-polygamy society (despite the fact that JS was currently knocking boots with one of her counselors snd the sectetary - Sarah Cleveland and Eliza Snow).

[LA Ute]

This account is worth reading.

http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/excommunication/

[Sullyute]

This account is worth reading.

http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/excommunication/

So I read that. I think that it was a very heartfelt account from the bishop's point of view. I still don't understand why the councilors and clerk needed to attend when the bishop is the one making the decision and he was already seeking the will of the Lord. Why does she have to recount details in front of all these men?

Also he spent a lot of time talking about preparing for the decision, receiving the decision, and sharing the decision, but just two short paragraphs about coming back to the fold.


I told her she was welcome to worship with us, and invited her to do whatever was necessary in her life to return, once again, to membership through baptism.I then shared with her the few items of counsel I had put together with my counselors. I again expressed love for her and my faith in her ability to do the Lord’s will in her life. I assured her that she would not be “left alone” by me or the Lord, that as long as she lived in the area we would stand ready to help her in any way that we could.
I invited my counselors, in turn, to share any thoughts that were on their minds. They expressed their love for the sister. They were sincere and caring. I invited the sister to share her thoughts and feelings. She was humble and accepting. She indicated that she wanted to make her way back. We encouraged her to do so.

Now maybe that was just not the focus of the journal post, but it really seems like that should be the focus of repentance. I would have liked to hear more on that, but her willingness to go through the discipline process seems like she is on the right path and all that is needed is just time.

LA, having been the bridesmaid several times, but never the bride, how have you seen the person handled that is disciplined? Does the bishop continue to try and meet with them, do they just wait a year and then give them a call to see where things are at? From all the things I have read it seems like there tends to be more meetings before the discipline then there are after it. What is your experience on this?

[NorthwestUteFan]

That is a touching account. I appreciate the Bishop's perspective and struggle.

However I find it abhorrent that a man without any professional counseling training gets to grill a woman behind closed doors regarding sexual misdeeds. There is no way to make this anything other than an exercise in humiliation. Perhaps that is the intention, to convince the 'sinner' that he or she is broken and needs to church to 'fix' him or her.

If the church intends to continue this practice in the future they would be smart to at a minimum allow women to be interviewed by a female leader.

[Two Utes]

That is a touching account. I appreciate the Bishop's perspective and struggle.

However I find it abhorrent that a man without any professional counseling training gets to grill a woman behind closed doors regarding sexual misdeeds. There is no way to make this anything other than an exercise in humiliation. Perhaps that is the intention, to convince the 'sinner' that he or she is broken and needs to church to 'fix' him or her.

If the church intends to continue this practice in the future they would be smart to at a minimum allow women to be interviewed by a female leader.

And what did she do? My goodness. Way to rake someone over the coals for something that she already probably feels bad about without getting raked over the coals. Why is this process necessary? Your god seems to act like a real asshole sometimes.

[Rocker Ute]

That is a touching account. I appreciate the Bishop's perspective and struggle.

However I find it abhorrent that a man without any professional counseling training gets to grill a woman behind closed doors regarding sexual misdeeds. There is no way to make this anything other than an exercise in humiliation. Perhaps that is the intention, to convince the 'sinner' that he or she is broken and needs to church to 'fix' him or her.

If the church intends to continue this practice in the future they would be smart to at a minimum allow women to be interviewed by a female leader.

I can think of many female leaders in my wards I wouldn't want within a mile of my daughters in an interview. Way more judgmental, hardline and in-compassionate when it comes to this stuff.

We don't know the backstory and this all may have been initiated by her. It seems you only want to see this all from one perspective.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I can think of many female leaders in my wards I wouldn't want within a mile of my daughters in an interview. Way more judgmental, hardline and in-compassionate when it comes to this stuff.

We don't know the backstory and this all may have been initiated by her. It seems you only want to see this all from one perspective.

No woman (or girl) should be forced to discuss sexual issues, behind closed doors, with a man who is not a trained therapist or doctor and who is working explicitly within the scope of his profession. Period.

Yes, perhaps over 99% of bishops are pure as the driven snow but the risk of emotional or ecclesiastical abuse at a vulnerable time is enough of a concern to be wary. If a woman already feels badly about an experience or that she really didn't have a choice but to participate in that experience, then what purpose is served by further victimizing her?

[Rocker Ute]

If a woman already feels badly about an experience or that she really didn't have a choice but to participate in that experience, then what purpose is served by further victimizing her?

Huh? Did I miss that part of the story LA shared? She got ex'd for being sexually abused? or is this a hypothetical?

[LA Ute]

LA, having been the bridesmaid several times, but never the bride, how have you seen the person handled that is disciplined? Does the bishop continue to try and meet with them, do they just wait a year and then give them a call to see where things are at? From all the things I have read it seems like there tends to be more meetings before the discipline then there are after it. What is your experience on this?

I was just trying to recall. I think I have been part of 9 disciplinary councils (DCs), one as ward clerk, 3 as a bishopric counselor, and the others as a high councilor. (Three were for reinstatements and those were very different, happy experiences.) In all of them we (those other than the bishop or SP) had no idea what was happening other than that we were called to attend a DC. They were all held at non-routine times so as to minimize the likelihood that anyone would happen on the scene and determine what was happening. The person to whom any transgression had been confessed couldn't say what it was. That was up to the person involved. Most of the experiences were as sobering and hear-wrenching as the one the bishop in the blog post describes.

Anyway, in only one of those DCs was someone excommunicated. The rest were disfellowshipments or returns from discipline. In that case the person (a single woman whom I had home-taught and who was a friend of my wife's and mine) had lots of friends who stayed close to her. She kept coming to church and eventually was rebaptized, married, and had a family. (I will always remember her tearful, determined statement just before she left: "I want my membership back.") There was no formal contact with her, however. No home teacher, visiting teacher, etc. That's one reason why I understand the church encourages lesser discipline like probation or disfellowshipment because those allow the church structure to keep working with the person, i.e., they are still "in the fold."

I am not sure I answered your question.

[Sullyute]

I am not sure I answered your question.

You did great. I really appreciate your insight. Thanks for sharing.

[Two Utes]

Based on my own experience, I think there's at least an okay chance that she feels differently about it than you think she should.


According to his account, she was crying. So they were probing her with questions while she was crying. Remind me again why they needed to probe her with questions like that?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Huh? Did I miss that part of the story LA shared? She got ex'd for being sexually abused? or is this a hypothetical?

I was speaking generally, not specifically to the story LA posted. My point is the whole process has a potential to do significant harm to a person in need.

This is perhaps a topic for a different thread, but we have a very close friend who was disfellowshipped, in absentia*, by her Bishop after she went to him for emotional support after she was date raped. (Perhaps ironically, the person who date raped her was a recently returned missionary and they were set up on their blind date by the Bishop's wife) .


*she went to him in emotional pain seeking solace. After she told him what happened, that she was coerced to do things she didn't want to do, he asked the probing questions and thoroughly embarrassed her. After putting her through this emotional abuse he said, "We will need to hold a disciplinary council to move forward with your repentence process..." She told him to Fuck Off!, and marched out. The Bishop later called her mother (she was 19 at the time) and said that she had been disfellowshipped. She stayed away from the church for 6 years.

Yes, that Bishop was an unbelievable jackwagon, but that is the risk of having untrained men giving this type of psychological counseling. But the church has to accept some level of blame because they continue to maintain this type of system.

[Rocker Ute]

I was speaking generally, not specifically to the story LA posted. My point is the whole process has a potential to do significant harm to a person in need.

This is perhaps a topic for a different thread, but we have a very close friend who was disfellowshipped, in absentia*, by her Bishop after she went to him for emotional support after she was date raped. (Perhaps ironically, the person who date raped her was a recently returned missionary and they were set up on their blind date by the Bishop's wife) .


*she went to him in emotional pain seeking solace. After she told him what happened, that she was coerced to do things she didn't want to do, he asked the probing questions and thoroughly embarrassed her. After putting her through this emotional abuse he said, "We will need to hold a disciplinary council to move forward with your repentence process..." She told him to Fuck Off!, and marched out. The Bishop later called her mother (she was 19 at the time) and said that she had been disfellowshipped. She stayed away from the church for 6 years.

Yes, that Bishop was an unbelievable jackwagon, but that is the risk of having untrained men giving this type of psychological counseling. But the church has to accept some level of blame because they continue to maintain this type of system.

That's a horrible story. There is actually pretty clear protocol for what a bishop is to do in instances like this and it sounds like he didn't follow any of it and really should have been reported to higher authorities within the church for it (I hope he was). You are right about a bishop not being trained to counsel in those sort of situations and that is why they are to call church HQ which has trained professionals and also legal teams who can help the bishop in reporting these sort of things to authorities etc (they actually - and obviously - have a legal obligation to report these types of crimes). If for nothing else if he had half a brain he'd want to use those resources just to keep himself from one day being personally sued into oblivion.

More importantly though, they do have a pretty extensive network to help with these things. One of my very good friend's job is to travel to different wards and to help bishops in these sort of situations, what sort of professional counseling they should get and making sure that victims aren't further victimized. If she heard your story she'd go nuts about it.

[LA Ute]

I was surprised to see this, which is out just this morning:



June 28, 2014


In God's plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women. Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices. All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God. We express profound gratitude for the millions of Latter-day Saint women and men who willingly and effectively serve God and His children. Because of their faith and service, they have discovered that the Church is a place of spiritual nourishment and growth.

We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine
.

The Council of
The First Presidency and
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng

[NorthwestUteFan]

Interesting statement from Kate Kelly in the SL Trib article.



Moreover, they defined apostasy as "people who speak out against leaders of the church, or those who teach false doctrine," she said. "Given that I have always sustained leaders of church, and Ordain Women doesn’t teach any doctrine —let alone false doctrine —this clearly exonerates me. I am not guilty of either of those charges."

[LA Ute]

Interesting statement from Kate Kelly in the SL Trib article.

NWUF, I admire your passion in her favor, but more and more she's looking like she either just doesn't get it or she's downright disingenuous. She's losing lots of sympathy too, IMO.

[USS Utah]

they defined apostasy as "people who speak out against leaders of the church, or those who teach false doctrine,"

Was she referring to the statement? If so, she left some stuff out.


Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

[LA Ute]

One thing we can all agree on - she'd definitely an attorney.

An international civil rights attorney.

[UtahsMrSports]

NWUF, I admire your passion in her favor, but more and more she's looking like she either just doesn't get it or she's downright disingenuous. She's losing lots of sympathy too, IMO.

She is setting herself up to cry boo hoo and tell us all about how shocked she is when this appeal is denied. I wouldnt be surprised if a reality show is in the works.

[NorthwestUteFan]

LA, you are correct that she doesn't get it. The current set of church leaders define what is doctrine, and tomorrow's leaders will state things like 'we do not know why that practice happened; we affirm our doctrinal position in the other (more politically-correct) direction'. The Apostasy statement is very broad and leaves much open for local interpretation. But it seems that no actual questioning beyond a very local level will be tolerated. And that is ok, because they make the rules and their positions are not open for debate in public.

You shouldn't stand up against the King and then be surprised when you get smacked down. And that is where she miscalculated. Honestly I do not necessarily sympathize with her for being excommunicated and in some ways think she is better off now. She thinks of the church as a forum allowing open discussion, but it absolutely is not open beyond the correlated lesson manual material. We are allowed to have our own personal beliefs about topics and can even Oppose the church's positions on certain fronts, so long as we mostly keep those thoughts to ourselves and do not try to persuasively argue these points in public or online. (question: how large must a group become before the church sees it as subversive? 1000? 100? 10?)

And so we are left with a church structure that further marginalized people with beliefs that run counter to the orthodoxy. The church is increasingly unaccepting of those with more liberal beliefs. Surprisingly they also are pushing to purge those with more Fundamental beliefs, a la Rock Waterman (fundamental in the sense that the church no longer follows certain foundational beliefs, eg tithing is 10% of increase (after expenses) and not 10% of wages, women holding the priesthood (although that was in many ways a cover for polygamy), questioning statements by church leaders and prayerfully considering whether those statements are from God to gain a personal testimony of those statements (vs. the current paradigm of 'Obedience is the first law of the gospel' and 'once the prophet (or Church PR dept) speaks, the conversation is over!'), etc.

The gender inequality issues that inspired people like Kate Kelly to agitate for change preceded her and will remain until....I don't know. I don't know when women will be given an equal voice in the church. I don't know when girls will be encouraged to do and become anything They choose to be, without pushing 'Homemaker' as the single most ideal career path (not that there is anything wrong with that choice). I do not know when they will stop equating Priesthood with Motherhood, but I wish they would because saying that diminishes Fatherhood. (and ironically, being in Priesthood leadership often steals time that should better be spent on Fatherhood) Note to churh leaders: Motherhood is the corollary of Fatherhood, and not of any church-defined construct.

The church leaders are welcome to enforce their boundaries. But by doing so they extend the time frame for certain necessary changes, chase away somewhat unorthodox members, and scare away a rising generation of potential converts.


An international civil rights attorney.
sounds like International Woman of Mystery...
but I did find this:


Kate Kelly is the Donald M. Wilson Fellow at the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights. At the RFK Center, among other projects, Kate has worked closely with grassroots female activists in Africa, including Aminatou Haidar, President of the Collective of Sahrawi Human Rights Defenders (CODESA) in the Western Sahara to strategize regarding litigation and other international advocacy to protect the rights of the Sahrawi people. During law school Ms. Kelly was an Ella Baker Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and an intern at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in San Jose, Costa Rica. She also participated in an integrated learning program in Geneva, Switzerland, working directly with theUnited Nations Committee Against Torture. She has a J.D. from American University Washington College of Law.


She is setting herself up to cry boo hoo and tell us all about how shocked she is when this appeal is denied. I wouldnt be surprised if a reality show is in the works.

I agree that she is deluded to some extent. She still believes the Joseph Smith story, for example.

[UtahsMrSports]

I agree that she is deluded to some extent. She still believes the Joseph Smith story, for example.

Ohhhh burn! burn!

[Scorcho]

since we are studying the Priesthood this month in Sunday School, we had a great lesson yesterday about Kate Kelly, the First Presidency's Message about the Priesthood, about the differing roles for men and women. It was a good reminder that God views men and women as equals, just with differing roles. I sensed that the teenagers in my class would be comfortable either way (if either sex, or both had the Priesthood).

[NorthwestUteFan]

Ohhhh burn! burn!

Just a little counter-trolling effort...


since we are studying the Priesthood this month in Sunday School, we had a great lesson yesterday about Kate Kelly, the First Presidency's Message about the Priesthood, about the differing roles for men and women. It was a good reminder that God views men and women as equals, just with differing roles. I sensed that the teenagers in my class would be comfortable either way (if either sex, or both had the Priesthood).

The younger generations, especially teenagers, seem to have a very tolerant, progressive, and accepting view of gender and support equality to a large degree. Many kids in Jr high or high school will have gay or lesbian friends or family members. This is the 'new normal'.

This familiarity with and acceptance of what used to be called 'alternative lifestyles' informs their views on gender roles. Those of us who grew up in the 50s/60s/70s/80s had a different view of gender roles and may have been comfortable defining a 'woman's place' within a narrow set of restrictions.

People growing up in the 90s/00's/10s find that type of narrow definition anathema to their world view. Whether we like it or not the younger generations are hedging strongly toward full equality in gender and sexuality. This is a group who will vote in their first presidential election in 2016 or 2020. And this is the group who will be expected to go on missions around the same time.

And this is the group who will be targeted as potential converts. But they won't join the church because they will view the church's gender and sex discrimination, and also intolerance for LGTB, as being 'less moral' than their current belief system of tolerance for those who are different from ourselves.

To be honest I feel badly for the current crop of church leaders. They came of age in the 1920s/30s/40s, and the world must seem so very different and confusing to them. They may well be victims of the system and unable to redirect the superfreighter. Or they may just see the world as increasingly more evil, that Satan has control over everybody, and Surely the End of Times is near and we must prepare the way for The Lord!

Either way there is a huge sucking sound as the droves of the younger generations leave the church. The sucking sound also represents converts becoming more informed about real issues than are the missionaries who teach them by making a few clicks on a smartphone, asking a few difficult questions of the baffled missionaries, and receiving no satisfactory response, thanking the missionaries for their time and asking them never to return.

Somehow, in some way, they need to find a way to soften the message or else go along for the ride down the steep back side hill following the denouement of the Mormon Moment.

InthenameofJesusChristAmen.

[Sullyute]

To be honest I feel badly for the current crop of church leaders. They came of age in the 1920s/30s/40s, and the world must seem so very different and confusing to them. They may well be victims of the system and unable to redirect the superfreighter. Or they may just see the world as increasingly more evil, that Satan has control over everybody, and Surely the End of Times is near and we must prepare the way for The Lord!

You just described Mormon leaders from 1830 forward. ;)

[NorthwestUteFan]

You just described Mormon leaders from 1830 forward. ;)

Actually, I think this might describe a significant portion of all Christian leaders from ~100 CE onward...

On a serious note I think it is interesting to imagine what the LDS church will look like when all of the leaders at the top are born after 1965.

[wally]

On a serious note I think it is interesting to imagine what the LDS church will look like when all of the leaders at the top are born after 1965.

Like this.

[wally]

On a serious note I think it is interesting to imagine what the LDS church will look like when all of the leaders at the top are born after 1965.


Or if you were thinking of what futuristic temples might look like I would picture this, but with angel moroni:

[Rocker Ute]

Actually, I think this might describe a significant portion of all Christian leaders from ~100 CE onward...

On a serious note I think it is interesting to imagine what the LDS church will look like when all of the leaders at the top are born after 1965.

The LDS Church won't be around any more. Everyone will have left because of the huge sucking sound of droves of younger generations leaving the church. Wally's floating temple picture seems to support that notion too.

[Two Utes]

Just a little counter-trolling effort...



The younger generations, especially teenagers, seem to have a very tolerant, progressive, and accepting view of gender and support equality to a large degree. Many kids in Jr high or high school will have gay or lesbian friends or family members. This is the 'new normal'.

This familiarity with and acceptance of what used to be called 'alternative lifestyles' informs their views on gender roles. Those of us who grew up in the 50s/60s/70s/80s had a different view of gender roles and may have been comfortable defining a 'woman's place' within a narrow set of restrictions.

People growing up in the 90s/00's/10s find that type of narrow definition anathema to their world view. Whether we like it or not the younger generations are hedging strongly toward full equality in gender and sexuality. This is a group who will vote in their first presidential election in 2016 or 2020. And this is the group who will be expected to go on missions around the same time.

And this is the group who will be targeted as potential converts. But they won't join the church because they will view the church's gender and sex discrimination, and also intolerance for LGTB, as being 'less moral' than their current belief system of tolerance for those who are different from ourselves.

To be honest I feel badly for the current crop of church leaders. They came of age in the 1920s/30s/40s, and the world must seem so very different and confusing to them. They may well be victims of the system and unable to redirect the superfreighter. Or they may just see the world as increasingly more evil, that Satan has control over everybody, and Surely the End of Times is near and we must prepare the way for The Lord!

Either way there is a huge sucking sound as the droves of the younger generations leave the church. The sucking sound also represents converts becoming more informed about real issues than are the missionaries who teach them by making a few clicks on a smartphone, asking a few difficult questions of the baffled missionaries, and receiving no satisfactory response, thanking the missionaries for their time and asking them never to return.

Somehow, in some way, they need to find a way to soften the message or else go along for the ride down the steep back side hill following the denouement of the Mormon Moment.

InthenameofJesusChristAmen.

Northwest is dead on here.

[Two Utes]

The LDS Church won't be around any more. Everyone will have left because of the huge sucking sound of droves of younger generations leaving the church. Wally's floating temple picture seems to support that notion too.


No, Rocker the church will still be around, but more and more you will be surrounded by a fringe group of fellow worshippers.

Think about it for a minute. Let's pretend a reasonable guy like you has a real bright and real overacheiving kid. This kid is a real go getter. Kid wants to go to an Ivy league school and appears to have the acumen to do so. In ten years, will the Ivy league schools still look upon Mormons as acceptable for admission as they do now if the church doesn't change its stance on gays in general? Now maybe you could argue that it isn't really going to make a difference. Even if that were the case, I can guarantee that said overachieving kid has absolutely no chance of running a large or visible company of any kind (except those located in Utah County) if he (or she) remains an active LDS member. His church will be viewed by gay workers in such a bad light, that his hiring would be too controversial. In fact I think this is the case right now.

If you think I am kidding, I am not.

[Rocker Ute]

No, Rocker the church will still be around, but more and more you will be surrounded by a fringe group of fellow worshippers.

Think about it for a minute. Let's pretend a reasonable guy like you has a real bright and real overacheiving kid. This kid is a real go getter. Kid wants to go to an Ivy league school and appears to have the acumen to do so. In ten years, will the Ivy league schools still look upon Mormons as acceptable for admission as they do now if the church doesn't change its stance on gays in general? Now maybe you could argue that it isn't really going to make a difference. Even if that were the case, I can guarantee that said overachieving kid has absolutely no chance of running a large or visible company of any kind (except those located in Utah County) if he (or she) remains an active LDS member. His church will be viewed by gay workers in such a bad light, that his hiring would be too controversial. In fact I think this is the case right now.

If you think I am kidding, I am not.

Would that be a return to roots? The Mormon Church and its beliefs and practices has always been problematic for most people. Mormons and Utah have just wished that it changed with the Olympics or something. Truthfully I've never seen a group of people or a state so desperately seeking validation.

Despite living in Utah, most of my work is in Park City, I'm accustomed to how pretty much everyone in the world views Mormonism and am accustomed being the only Mormon in a room and that going over like a fart at a funeral. That's truthfully the reason why I don't get social Mormons or people who claim to be Mormon to advance their business practices. If I ever get out I'm out 100%, it isn't that much of a positive to be a Mormon among Mormons (because we are still seeking validation) but it already is a negative with everyone else, and has been long before Prop 8 or any other issue was at the forefront. We think the nation is watching what Mormons are doing regarding gays and women, but really when it comes to Mormons nationally it is more about magic underwear than it is about gay rights.

But I actually hope my Ivy League bound son and daughters (which actually looks like it might be a possibility) don't ever view any executive position in a Fortune 500 as of more value than their personal values. I see too many of those guys at the Talisker Club who try to make up for 50 weeks of neglect with two weeks of fly fishing and horseback riding before they eventually ship their kids to the finest boarding school and drug rehab in the land.

Also, the Catholic Church will need to shift its stance, along with most Evangelical Christian denominations along with minorities too (look at the research). It will be an interesting next decade when it comes to this.

Now don't take this as me dismissing any of what you are saying. The church has a real issue with this and has sent conflicting and confusing messages on this. On one hand they are pushing for the marriage amendment and Prop 8, and then they support civil unions and rights for gay couples in SLC. They haven't effectively explained their opposition to gay marriage and they haven't connected the dots to why they would support civil unions.

I think this will be critical for them to do, we'll see if they pull it off.

[Rocker Ute]

And I should apologize for my snark. For two years I served a mission in the bible belt and heard about the inevitable death knell of the LDS church. I heard people present the same stuff 20 years ago what is all over the internet today... it was readily available then, as it is now. The truth is, there is already a ton going against the LDS church to an outsider. If you sit back and look at it all, it seems nuts.

Point being, there are already some significant hurdles to the public accepting Mormons. I think the scenario you described about Ivy League CEOs is likely to eventually become an issue for all devoutly religious people.

[LA Ute]

Therefore, brothers and sisters, quiet goodness must persevere, even when, as prophesied, a few actually rage in their anger against that which is good (see 2 Ne. 28:20 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.20?lang=eng#19)). Likewise, the arrogance of critics must be met by the meekness and articulateness of believers. If sometimes ringed by resentment, we must still reach out, especially for those whose hands hang down (see D&C 81:5 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/81.5?lang=eng#4)). If our shortcomings as a people are occasionally highlighted, then let us strive to do better.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/becometh-as-a-child?lang=eng


:saythat:

[UtahsMrSports]

No, Rocker the church will still be around, but more and more you will be surrounded by a fringe group of fellow worshippers.

Think about it for a minute. Let's pretend a reasonable guy like you has a real bright and real overacheiving kid. This kid is a real go getter. Kid wants to go to an Ivy league school and appears to have the acumen to do so. In ten years, will the Ivy league schools still look upon Mormons as acceptable for admission as they do now if the church doesn't change its stance on gays in general? Now maybe you could argue that it isn't really going to make a difference. Even if that were the case, I can guarantee that said overachieving kid has absolutely no chance of running a large or visible company of any kind (except those located in Utah County) if he (or she) remains an active LDS member. His church will be viewed by gay workers in such a bad light, that his hiring would be too controversial. In fact I think this is the case right now.

If you think I am kidding, I am not.

Liberals demonstrating the high level of tolerance that they demand of everyone else. Color me shocked. /sarcasm

[Two Utes]

Sounds like a blessing in disguise. But I suspect that, ten years from now, Ivys will still have the US News and World Report as their #1 priority, and that will still rule admissions decisions.

As for jobs, just saw this article today:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/02/why-you-shouldnt-put-religion-on-your-resume/?hpt=hp_t4

So in the future, maybe Mormons will take the "Eagle Scout" line off their resume.



There's still time to talk them out of it, Rocker.

It is unbelievable that young lawyers still put "Eagle Scout" on their resume.

[LA Ute]

It is unbelievable that young lawyers still put "Eagle Scout" on their resume.

I guess it depends on where they are applying.

[Two Utes]

I guess it depends on where they are applying.


You are still good with that one in Utah County. Not so much in Salt Lake unless you are applying to Kirton & McConkie

[tooblue]

No, Rocker the church will still be around, but more and more you will be surrounded by a fringe group of fellow worshippers.

Think about it for a minute. Let's pretend a reasonable guy like you has a real bright and real overacheiving kid. This kid is a real go getter. Kid wants to go to an Ivy league school and appears to have the acumen to do so. In ten years, will the Ivy league schools still look upon Mormons as acceptable for admission as they do now if the church doesn't change its stance on gays in general? Now maybe you could argue that it isn't really going to make a difference. Even if that were the case, I can guarantee that said overachieving kid has absolutely no chance of running a large or visible company of any kind (except those located in Utah County) if he (or she) remains an active LDS member. His church will be viewed by gay workers in such a bad light, that his hiring would be too controversial. In fact I think this is the case right now.

If you think I am kidding, I am not.

You may not be kidding but your predictions are a strange kind of hyperbole. Let's consider them in a truly North American context. I've lived outside the US, and my home State of Utah, longer than I lived in it, but of course still in North America. The fears and insecurity expressed in your post are uniquely Utahan in origin. No one outside of Utah pays as close attention to Mormons as your post suggests. The vast majority of people across north America are ignorant of Mormonism at best and quite frankly could care less at worse. It's just not on their radar. They have other things to worry about.

Let's frame this differently; let's test your hypothesis, using the spectre of the LDS churches stance on Gay marriage, raised in your post. I live in a country where homosexual marriage has been legal for more than ten years. The arguments for or against are long since over. Society has moved on. I am devout LDS. I am not ostracized, nor have I ever been passed over. I am judged exclusively on the merits of my ability to perform in my area of expertise as it relates to my vocation. That will not change. Furthermore, no one else in my purview is suffering from the "controversies" you outline. In fact I personally know two CEO's of fortune 500 companies that were transferred to run foreign operations, and who now serve as Stake Presidents.

Also, I do not know of any one who was not admitted to any particular school due to their "religion." On the contrary, I work on a shared college and University campus. The University specializes in Nuclear sciences and engineering. More than half the population of students at the university are from outside of north America. A large portion of those students are from Pakistan and the middle east. Burga's are a common sight (heck, they were a common sight at my son's high school grad this past week), not an oddity. Some how those students are being admitted and accommodated in droves more than ten years after gay marriage was legalized. In one high publicized incident this year a student was permitted not to attend classes due to religious sensitivities. He successfully argued:


“One of the main reasons that I have chosen internet courses to complete my BA is due to my firm religious beliefs,” the student wrote. “It will not be possible for me to meet in public with a group of women (the majority of my group) to complete some of these tasks.”

You see, what will ultimately prevail is universal accommodation for all, as it relates to any and everything. As a lawyer that should make you happy ... all of these potential conflicts and situations will call for many more lawyers to sort them out. So, relax. The demise of the LDS church and the potential persecution of it's members is grossly exaggerated.

[LA Ute]

I suppose most Eagle Scouts mention it in the interview when they sense it will help them. Are you really saying that in Salt Lake a firm would pass on an applicant because he was a Boy Scout in his teens? That surprises me a little.

[Two Utes]

I suppose most Eagle Scouts mention it in the interview when they sense it will help them. Are you really saying that in Salt Lake a firm would pass on an applicant because he was a Boy Scout in his teens? That surprises me a little.

No. I am not saying a law firm will pass on an applicant because he was an Eagle Scout. I am saying if said applicant puts on his resume that he is an Eagle Scout he is likely to get passed by.

[LA Ute]

No. I am not saying a law firm will pass on an applicant because he was an Eagle Scout. I am saying if said applicant puts on his resume that he is an Eagle Scout he is likely to get passed by.

I remember an applicant who had a long section on her resume about her extensive pro-life activities. I don't think that kind of information belongs on a resume submitted with a law firm employment application. If I saw "Eagle Scout" on a resume I would think it a little odd and I would probably wonder what he was thinking. (I'm a Scouter of long standing, so to me it's a plus that a guy is an Eagle. But on a professional resume?)

[Rocker Ute]

It is unbelievable that young lawyers still put "Eagle Scout" on their resume.

I have to admit I laugh a bit every time someone puts that on their resume. I asked a guy once about it and he got kind of embarrassed and I said, "Well, I don't know that it is appropriate to put that on your resume as we all know our Mom's got the Eagle for us."

There is one place it is important to put down that you are an Eagle Scout though, when joining the military. You automatically get put up to the next pay level and a rank advancement, so you don't just enter as Private, you are Private First Class (this according to a kid in my hood who is in the Army).

[Scorcho]

I have to admit I laugh a bit every time someone puts that on their resume. I asked a guy once about it and he got kind of embarrassed and I said, "Well, I don't know that it is appropriate to put that on your resume as we all know our Mom's got the Eagle for us."

There is one place it is important to put down that you are an Eagle Scout though, when joining the military. You automatically get put up to the next pay level and a rank advancement, so you don't just enter as Private, you are Private First Class (this according to a kid in my hood who is in the Army).

I imagine that putting Eagle Scout down on your resume is dependant on how far removed you are from that accomplishment. Clearly, if you are in your 30's/40's it would seem weird/silly, but if your in your early 20's without many other accomplishments and need it as resume filler, then it makes sense.


I imagine there are a few young mid 20's fresh grad's out of law school, MBA that have been in school full-time for years and don't have much else. In that situation, maybe it's ok???

[Diehard Ute]

There also should be a clarification if it's a Utah Eagle or a non Utah Eagle.

It's well know obtaining the rank of Eagle in most Utah troops is a far different experience than it is outside

(I was in a non-LDS troop growing up. We had an eagle every 2-3 years at best)

[LA Ute]

There also should be a clarification if it's a Utah Eagle or a non Utah Eagle.

It's well know obtaining the rank of Eagle in most Utah troops is a far different experience than it is outside

(I was in a non-LDS troop growing up. We had an eagle every 2-3 years at best)

I have heard the same thing but it is dangerous to generalize. So much of the Eagle experience depends on a variety of factors beyond what organization is sponsoring the troop. Having said that, I am painfully aware that LDS Scouting has lots of warts.

[Rocker Ute]

There also should be a clarification if it's a Utah Eagle or a non Utah Eagle.

It's well know obtaining the rank of Eagle in most Utah troops is a far different experience than it is outside

(I was in a non-LDS troop growing up. We had an eagle every 2-3 years at best)

Wait, are you trying to undermine my rank of Eagle, something that has helped me on my resume to get where I am today?

[Diehard Ute]

Wait, are you trying to undermine my rank of Eagle, something that has helped me on my resume to get where I am today?

Trying to encourage you to find a more current reference for your resume.

[LA Ute]

Trying to encourage you to find a more current reference for your resume.

Are you telling me my high school grades no longer count?

[Diehard Ute]

Are you telling me my high school grades no longer count?

They never counted LA ;)

[Scorcho]

as long as we all agree that being a District Leader on an LDS Mission can be used as Management Experience.

:D

[LA Ute]

They never counted LA ;)

Now you're just being a big fat meanie.

[Diehard Ute]

Now you're just being a big fat meanie.

Just cause I'm up a couple pounds today doesn't mean you can call me fat.

[Brian]

There also should be a clarification if it's a Utah Eagle or a non Utah Eagle.

It's well know obtaining the rank of Eagle in most Utah troops is a far different experience than it is outside

(I was in a non-LDS troop growing up. We had an eagle every 2-3 years at best)

My Utah eagle project was making quilts for a hospital.
My mom set up the quilting frames, and a few friends came over and goofed around, sewed a few stitches while we watched TV.

Most of the projects I've been involved with outside of Utah involve 20-30 people from the ward for a good 4-5 hours. And that doesn't include all the work they have to do before the day of the project.

i should probably give back my badge.

[Diehard Ute]

My Utah eagle project was making quilts for a hospital.
My mom set up the quilting frames, and a few friends came over and goofed around, sewed a few stitches while we watched TV.

Most of the projects I've been involved with outside of Utah involve 20-30 people from the ward for a good 4-5 hours. And that doesn't include all the work they have to do before the day of the project.

i should probably give back my badge.

It's not really the projects that are the issue. It's the process getting there. Check out the number of eagles and the ages of those getting eagles in other troops compared to many Utah troops and it raises some questions.

I didn't stick around long enough to do much of anything. Scouting didn't provide me with any real fun

[Rocker Ute]

It's not really the projects that are the issue. It's the process getting there. Check out the number of eagles and the ages of those getting eagles in other troops compared to many Utah troops and it raises some questions.

I didn't stick around long enough to do much of anything. Scouting didn't provide me with any real fun

I agree, I was going to type up a lengthy story about this very thing, but I actually think it has become a product of Scouting in general and not so much of the LDS church.

They have these merit badge weekend camps where you go to a day, pay some money and you walk out with 6 or 7 merit badges, this is happening all over the country. I think that is kind of ridiculous. And by 'kind of' I mean 'totally'.

[UtahsMrSports]

It's not really the projects that are the issue. It's the process getting there. Check out the number of eagles and the ages of those getting eagles in other troops compared to many Utah troops and it raises some questions.

I didn't stick around long enough to do much of anything. Scouting didn't provide me with any real fun

This thread has taken a very interesting turn. I agree with you in the sense that sometimes when I see a kid who is 13 getting an eagle, I have to chuckle.

Looking back at my time, i feel like my project and eagle were legit. I dont think I ever got handed a merit badge without completing the requirements. Also, I remember being denied badges because the person reviewing it with me wanted to see me have a better understanding before signing off. My project took forever and was hard work, but a lot of fun.

Oh, and lest I be accused (again) of being a jerk on this thread, let me add that without my Mom, there is not a chacne in the world I would have earned it. :)

[#1 Utefan]

Two Utes, give it a rest. Ivy League schools 10 years from now aeen't going to start discriminating against individuals based on their religious or poltical views. They may not like certain organizations or their poltical views but it would be unconstitutional to deny admission to an individual based on their religious or political affiliation or views.

I realize we are in an activist judicial environment and it will likely intensify over time but the day our federal courts allow that kind of over the top actvistdiscrimination, we may as well throw out the Constitution and admit we are no longer a free country with guarantees of feedom of speech or religion.

[Rocker Ute]

Two Utes, give it a rest. Ivy League schools 10 years from now aeen't going to start discriminating against individuals based on their religious or poltical views. They may not like certain organizations or their poltical views but it would be unconstitutional to deny admission to an individual based on their religious or political affiliation or views.

I realize we are in an activist judicial environment and it will likely intensify over time but the day our federal courts allow that kind of over the top actvistdiscrimination, we may as well throw out the Constitution and admit we are no longer a free country with guarantees of feedom of speech or religion.

I think his point isn't about Ivy League schools but that big businesses will be selective in their leadership and how their personal views might affect their clients and employees.

Mozilla showed just that with the recent CEO.

This is already the case I think though, and if Mormons are labeled as anti-gay it will become more problematic. Like others have said though, I think the labels in Utah don't carry across the nation yet.

[#1 Utefan]

True. There is a lot of ignorance about the LSS church but most could care less about people's religious beliefs or political views unless they are extensively discussing and proselytizing their views in the work place. I don't think the gay marriage thing changes that much 10 years from now either.

The reality is there are still a lot of people, groups, and minorities that aren't still onboard with it either so it isnt as if it is the Mormon is an outlier organization without any peer. The Catholic Church isn't onboard with it either. I think there are still more out there that aren't comfortable with it then what recent media surveys are telling us - media pressure and bully tactics against groups that express different viewpoints have likely forced many to go quiet rather then expressing their real thoughts)

Either way, Mormon or not, everyone is an individual and may have views different then their parents, church, or whoever on any given issue. Any business or admissions dept or openly discriminating against an individual based on their religious or political affiliation may find itself in trouble even 10 years from now.

Of course, given the growing activist nature of our federal court system, I do think there is reason for concern and to worry whether constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion will still be protected in the future.

[Two Utes]

True. There is a lot of ignorance about the LSS church but most could care less about people's religious beliefs or political views unless they are extensively discussing and proselytizing their views in the work place. I don't think the gay marriage thing changes that much 10 years from now either.

The reality is there are still a lot of people, groups, and minorities that aren't still onboard with it either so it isnt as if it is the Mormon is an outlier organization without any peer. The Catholic Church isn't onboard with it either. I think there are still more out there that aren't comfortable with it then what recent media surveys are telling us - media pressure and bully tactics against groups that express different viewpoints have likely forced many to go quiet rather then expressing their real thoughts)

Either way, Mormon or not, everyone is an individual and may have views different then their parents, church, or whoever on any given issue. Any business or admissions dept or openly discriminating against an individual based on their religious or political affiliation may find itself in trouble even 10 years from now.

Of course, given the growing activist nature of our federal court system, I do think there is reason for concern and to worry whether constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion will still be protected in the future.

People do care. If your religious view is that races shouldn't mix, whites should marry whites and blacks should only marry blacks, your employer (or prospective employer) will definitely care about your religious views.

[LA Ute]

Just cause I'm up a couple pounds today doesn't mean you can call me fat.

A big meanie, then.

[#1 Utefan]

Okay, so I am LDS and white. My wife is halfAsian and Hispanic. Care to elaborate on what church or group you are referring to? No one in my church ever told me I couldn't marry my wife but apparently you are aware of something I'm not?

If you have a problem or axe to grind with the LDS Church and its member, that is your choice. I am just pointing out that most employers and people out there aren't as concerned about whether someone is LDS, Muslim, or whatever as long as they work hard, do their jobs, and don't prosletyze their faith or political views extensively at work or in the public eye.

If your goal is to put me and all members od the church in a box to fit whatever argument or narrative you are trying to make, you are going to need to do better. There is more diversity in the LDS Church then you apparently think. Discriminating against someone based on their faith and perception of their beliefs is something that will hopefully never be condoned by employers or our court system.

[chrisrenrut]

People do care. If your religious view is that races shouldn't mix, whites should marry whites and blacks should only marry blacks, your employer (or prospective employer) will definitely care about your religious views.

Wouldn't most employers be sued if they asked questions in the hiring process about a person's religion? I know the EEOC would frown on it.

[Rocker Ute]

Came across this and it reminded me of religious discussions here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU

Posted with love of course.

[NorthwestUteFan]

That is hilarious. David Mitchell and Robert Webb are two of the funniest comedians of this generation.

This one also ranks right up there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDfoJ29CR4E

[Sullyute]

Okay, so I am LDS and white. My wife is halfAsian and Hispanic. Care to elaborate on what church or group you are referring to? No one in my church ever told me I couldn't marry my wife but apparently you are aware of something I'm not?

Actually it has been taught to young men for almost 20 years if not more. Here is the quote (https://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-3/lesson-31-choosing-an-eternal-companion?lang=eng) that is still part of the young men's manual:


“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

[LA Ute]

I think it's a big stretch to describe that paragraph as an official church teaching against interracial marriage. Even if that is what the church teaches, one visit to any ward in a large city anywhere in the world will demonstrate how widely it's been disregarded for many years now.

[Two Utes]

I think it's a big stretch to describe that paragraph as an official church teaching against interracial marriage. Even if that is what the church teaches, one visit to any ward in a large city anywhere in the world will demonstrate how widely it's been disregarded for many years now.

And I'm not suggesting or arguing that LDS members currently don't believe in interracial marriage.

I was making a subtle point that in ten or twenty years from now, if you still oppose gay marriage, you may appear eerily similar to those "religious" people who oppose interracial marriage today. That subtle point got totally lost on #1Utefan, who I won't argue with any further on this topic.

[LA Ute]

And I'm not suggesting or arguing that LDS members currently don't believe in interracial marriage.

I was making a subtle point that in ten or twenty years from now, if you still oppose gay marriage, you may appear eerily similar to those "religious" people who oppose interracial marriage today.

Fair enough. That may well happen but I personally hope it doesn't.

[Sullyute]

I think it's a big stretch to describe that paragraph as an official church teaching against interracial marriage. Even if that is what the church teaches, one visit to any ward in a large city anywhere in the world will demonstrate how widely it's been disregarded for many years now.

I disagree, however the funny thing is that if they just changed the word "racial" to "[cultural]" then it wouldn't be bad advice. Either way, I am surprised that they included the nearly 40 year old quote in the new youth manual and didn't use something from a more modern prophet.

[LA Ute]

I disagree, however the funny thing is that if they just changed the word "racial" to "[cultural]" then it wouldn't be bad advice. Either way, I am surprised that they included the nearly 40 year old quote in the new youth manual and didn't use something from a more modern prophet.

It is a very dated quote and I too wish it would be removed.

[Solon]

Meanwhile, the Anglican church is allowing its female priests to become bishops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/europe/church-of-england-votes-to-allow-women-as-bishops.html?_r=0

Anglicans have been ordaining women for over 20 years now.

Let's see . . . it took 458 years in England from Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy (1534) to the Synod that approved the ordination of Anglican women (1992).
Joseph Smith organized the LDS church in 1830, so only about 274 years to go until we can expect to see the same.

[UtahsMrSports]

as if I havent beat enough dead horses today, here is this......

I find it interesting that the OW facebook page has banned everyone with a different viewpoint. oh the irony.........

http://ordainwomen.org/kate-kellys-appeal-to-her-stake-president/

[DrumNFeather]

as if I havent beat enough dead horses today, here is this......

I find it interesting that the OW facebook page has banned everyone with a different viewpoint. oh the irony.........

http://ordainwomen.org/kate-kellys-appeal-to-her-stake-president/

Her husband's letter is interesting...especially given how relatively silent he seemingly has been throughout the whole process.

[DrumNFeather]

Her letter states that she feared that if she had shown up to her hearing via video conference that the video would be leaked to the media and that is why she didn't attend. That's grasping just a bit.

[Applejack]

Whatever happened to Dehlin? Exed? DisF-ed? Informal Probationed? Calling and election made sure?

[DrumNFeather]

I was surprised she didn't agree to the video because I figured she would have loved to put pieces of it up on her site. I would have never agreed to a video as a bishop out of the same fear. You can think through a written response, but a video captures your dumbest spur of the moment responses and reactions.

Anyway, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that her letter is not the right approach to win an appeal. Why bother appealing if all you do angrily accuse everyone of everything? So that you can put it on your blog.

Her whole notion of the church leaders forcing her hand by "threatening" to go to the media has always seemed like a stretch to me. All they said was at some point they might have to clarify what her standing was if she continued to promote herself as a member in good standing. However, it doesn't ever state that they would run to the media. It seems like in this situation (and in Johns) the church leaders have gone out of their way to avoid having this stuff in the media. So for me at least that just seems so disingenuous on her part to state that as the reason for missing the hearing/court.

I agree with you on the letter...she's talking herself in circles (IMO) and putting forth arguments and purported nefarious intentions by these leaders. "You disgust me...please take me back." :rolleyes:

[UtahsMrSports]

Her whole notion of the church leaders forcing her hand by "threatening" to go to the media has always seemed like a stretch to me. All they said was at some point they might have to clarify what her standing was if she continued to promote herself as a member in good standing. However, it doesn't ever state that they would run to the media. It seems like in this situation (and in Johns) the church leaders have gone out of their way to avoid having this stuff in the media. So for me at least that just seems so disingenuous on her part to state that as the reason for missing the hearing/court.

I agree with you on the letter...she's talking herself in circles (IMO) and putting forth arguments and purported nefarious intentions by these leaders. "You disgust me...please take me back." :rolleyes:

I have maintained from the beginning that she is either an extremely disingenuous person, a complete idiot, or a person so bent on their agenda that they dont care what they have to take out in the process.

Her husbands letter seems like an attempt to just go down in a blaze of glory.

Nadine's "statement" actually achieved something significant: It was longer and more dull than her first letter! I feel sorry for anyone forced to read through that.

[UtahsMrSports]

A list - 10 things you should not do when angry:

http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/stress/10-things-you-should-never-do-when-youre-angry#2

I guess they should add "write an excommunication appeal."

lol!

[NorthwestUteFan]

John Dehlin released an excellent MoSto interview with Kate Kelly and Neil Ransom. I wish that her professor was correct and that she had been kicked out of byu for organizing a Free Speech protest at byu, and were forced to go to Utah, because I would love to count these two as Utah graduates.

It is interesting to hear her level of belief in the LDS church. She is very much an LAUte- or Teryl Givens-style believer, in that she knows about most of the structural problems, truth claims, historicity problems, and most of the ugly underbelly of the LSD church, and that those things do not matter in informing her beliefs as much as her own personal experiences. She is a devout, strong believer because of those personal experiences, and things like Joseph Smith and other leaders extensive and spiritually abusive polygamy, that the Book of Mormon and much of Mormon doctrine relies on a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Noah, a literal Tower of Babel, etc (despite those stories all being myths), etc., are irrelevant because personal spiritual experiences and revelation trump any other shortcomings, and because everything is nuanced.

Her husband is more like me. I don't believe any of the church's foundationsl claims and see it mostly as a social club that can be inspirational, rather than as an inspired organization that has a social component. And the excommunication of Kate Kelly has made it apparent to me that the church is not willing to entertain open discussions over some of these questions, and that makes church an emotionally unsafe place for a number of people.

Anyway, give it a listen.

http://mormonstories.org/neil-ransom-and-kate-kelly-after-kates-excommunication/

[DrumNFeather]

John Dehlin released an excellent MoSto interview with Kate Kelly and Neil Ransom. I wish that her professor was correct and that she had been kicked out of byu for organizing a Free Speech protest at byu, and were forced to go to Utah, because I would love to count these two as Utah graduates.

It is interesting to hear her level of belief in the LDS church. She is very much an LAUte- or Teryl Givens-style believer, in that she knows about most of the structural problems, truth claims, historicity problems, and most of the ugly underbelly of the LSD church, and that those things do not matter in informing her beliefs as much as her own personal experiences. She is a devout, strong believer because of those personal experiences, and things like Joseph Smith and other leaders extensive and spiritually abusive polygamy, that the Book of Mormon and much of Mormon doctrine relies on a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Noah, a literal Tower of Babel, etc (despite those stories all being myths), etc., are irrelevant because personal spiritual experiences and revelation trump any other shortcomings, and because everything is nuanced.

Her husband is more like me. I don't believe any of the church's foundationsl claims and see it mostly as a social club that can be inspirational, rather than as an inspired organization that has a social component. And the excommunication of Kate Kelly has made it apparent to me that the church is not willing to entertain open discussions over some of these questions, and that makes church an emotionally unsafe place for a number of people.

Anyway, give it a listen.

http://mormonstories.org/neil-ransom-and-kate-kelly-after-kates-excommunication/

I haven't listened to the whole thing, but I heard some of Kate's husband. He was kind of interesting...Dehlin was leading him on several of those questions. Interesting to me that his faith crisis came at the same time as Kate founding Ordain Women.

Edit...Dehlin leads A LOT in these interviews. Never really realized that.

[LA Ute]

This seems to fit here. Agree with her or not, she is an articulate spokesperson.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QYlDLChzig

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Her husband's letter is interesting...especially given how relatively silent he seemingly has been throughout the whole process.

Isn't he the one next to her in all of news footage wearing a shirt, tie, and ball cap? I would hardly call such an unfortunate fashion decision as being "relatively silent."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrumNFeather]

Isn't he the one next to her in all of news footage wearing a shirt, tie, and ball cap? I would hardly call such an unfortunate fashion decision as being "relatively silent."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have not known that to be the case, but you may be right.

[UtahsMrSports]

So here is an interesting bit for discussion....

A couple of weeks ago, the trib had a bit on Swallow/Shurtleff and whether or not they will be excommunicated and if not, how it seems disingenuous to do so to Kate Kelly. A fair and interesting point if you ask me.

My understanding is that leaders allow the justice system to run its course before taking any disciplinary action, in most cases. I also understand that serious felonies can be excommunicatable offenses. But I do not have a full understanding here.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit of these two are ex'd if found guilty. I also wouldn't be surprised if we never hear about it. Swallow and Shurtleff dont really strike me as the "Running to the New York Times" type. Can anyone with more knowledge (ie just about everyone on this board) enlighten me here?

[LA Ute]

So here is an interesting bit for discussion....

A couple of weeks ago, the trib had a bit on Swallow/Shurtleff and whether or not they will be excommunicated and if not, how it seems disingenuous to do so to Kate Kelly. A fair and interesting point if you ask me.

My understanding is that leaders allow the justice system to run its course before taking any disciplinary action, in most cases. I also understand that serious felonies can be excommunicatable offenses. But I do not have a full understanding here.

I wouldn't be surprised one bit of these two are ex'd if found guilty. I also wouldn't be surprised if we never hear about it. Swallow and Shurtleff dont really strike me as the "Running to the New York Times" type. Can anyone with more knowledge (ie just about everyone on this board) enlighten me here?

Here are Da Rules:


6.7 Determining Whether a Disciplinary Council Is Necessary

6.7.1
When a Disciplinary Council Is Not Necessary


A disciplinary council normally is not necessary in the following instances.


Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards


A disciplinary council should not be held to discipline or threaten members who do not comply with the Word of Wisdom, who are struggling with pornography or self-abuse, or whose transgressions consist of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing, inactivity in the Church, or inattention to Church duties.


Business Failures or Nonpayment of Debts


Church leaders or members should not use the threat of Church discipline as a form of harassment or as a device to settle business controversies. Business failures and nonpayment of debts are not reasons for convening a disciplinary council. However, a disciplinary council may be held for deceptive practices, false representations, or other forms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions.


Civil Disputes


Disciplinary councils should not attempt to resolve disputes over property rights or other civil controversies. However, if such a dispute involves accusations that a member has committed acts that would justify Church discipline, leaders treat the accusations like any other accusations of transgression.


If Church leaders are asked to help settle civil disputes, they should act as unofficial, private advisers and should not involve the Church.


Passage of Time


If a member voluntarily confesses a serious transgression that was committed long ago and his faithfulness and service in the intervening years have demonstrated full reformation and repentance, a disciplinary council often is unnecessary (see “Time between Transgression and Confession” in 6.10.6).


6.7.2
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). 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.


6.7.3
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. 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; 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.


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.


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) that is widely known.

[UtahsMrSports]

Thanks LA. That was stuff i did not know.

You probably know this better than I do, but is there a deadline where KK's Stake President has to respond to her appeal? Or can he take his time?

[DrumNFeather]

Thanks LA. That was stuff i did not know.

You probably know this better than I do, but is there a deadline where KK's Stake President has to respond to her appeal? Or can he take his time?
If it is after football starts, interest will go way down. :)

[LA Ute]

Thanks LA. That was stuff i did not know.

You probably know this better than I do, but is there a deadline where KK's Stake President has to respond to her appeal? Or can he take his time?

It looks like he can take his time:



[QUOTE]6.10.10
Appeals

A person who has been excommunicated, disfellowshipped, or placed on formal probation by a disciplinary council may appeal the decision. An appeal of the action of a ward disciplinary council is to the stake presidency (and high council). An appeal of the action of a stake disciplinary council is to the First Presidency. An appeal of the action of a branch or district disciplinary council is to the mission president. An appeal of the action of a disciplinary council presided over by a mission president is to the First Presidency.

If a person who has been disciplined wants to appeal the decision, he specifies in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision. The person presents the appeal within 30 days to the presiding officer of the disciplinary council that made the decision. If a bishop or branch president presided over the council, he forwards the appeal with the Report of Church Disciplinary Action form and other relevant documents to the stake or mission president. If a stake or mission president presided over the council, he forwards the materials to the First Presidency.

The decision on the appeal may be to (1) let the initial decision stand, (2) modify the initial decision, or (3) direct the disciplinary council to rehear the matter. In addition, the First Presidency may refer an appeal to another priesthood officer or body for review (with or without receiving additional evidence) and resubmittal to the First Presidency with a recommendation.

[Switzerland]

I find it interesting that the OW facebook page has banned everyone with a different viewpoint. oh the irony.........

http://ordainwomen.org/kate-kellys-appeal-to-her-stake-president/

She continues to assert that she has a strong testimony. I wonder if she attended the Women's General Conference last night? Apparently OW is encouraging its members to show up at their local stake centers during this Saturday's Priesthood meeting. Makes me wonder if she attended the meeting she was invited to?

[UtahsMrSports]

She continues to assert that she has a strong testimony. I wonder if she attended the Women's General Conference last night? Apparently OW is encouraging its members to show up at their local stake centers during this Saturday's Priesthood meeting. Makes me wonder if she attended the meeting she was invited to?

Scrolling through their facebook page, it looks like they were encouraging their supporters to attend and to wear purple there and at the meeting this coming saturday night. I will be interested to see how many show up on saturday and how they are received. I imagine that some stakes will train the ushers to let them in without incident, and others will take a more hard line approach. I suspect that they are hoping for confrontations. If I was in charge, I would tell th e ushers to let them in and act normally. I would then suspect that many of them will head out the doors by the rest hymn if they don't get the attention.

[Mormon Red Death]

Scrolling through their facebook page, it looks like they were encouraging their supporters to attend and to wear purple there and at the meeting this coming saturday night. I will be interested to see how many show up on saturday and how they are received. I imagine that some stakes will train the ushers to let them in without incident, and others will take a more hard line approach. I suspect that they are hoping for confrontations. If I was in charge, I would tell th e ushers to let them in and act normally. I would then suspect that many of them will head out the doors by the rest hymn if they don't get the attention.

Your stake has ushers? I've never seen that before.

[UtahsMrSports]

Your stake has ushers? I've never seen that before.

I guess greeters would be a more appropriate title. Usually its HC members. But I havent seen them at every place ive watched it.

[Solon]

Caught up with a local friend who has stopped coming to church (ostensibly over women's issues, but, as always, it's a lot more complicated than that). Anyway, she said she's been going to an "anti-mormon support group." I ask her what she means, and she says it's a group that meets to listen to and talk about Dehlin's podcasts. Not sure he wants his stuff labeled that way, but that's what they consider it.

To each his/her own, I guess, but I can think of few things more awful than attending churchish meetings in order to dissect & complain about church.

Get outside and take a walk or something.

[wuapinmon]

To each his/her own, I guess, but I can think of few things more awful than attending churchish meetings in order to dissect & complain about church.

Get outside and take a walk or something.

That sounds like making an appointment with your physician to complain to him about how long his wait times are for appointments.

[UtahsMrSports]

Caught up with a local friend who has stopped coming to church (ostensibly over women's issues, but, as always, it's a lot more complicated than that). Anyway, she said she's been going to an "anti-mormon support group." I ask her what she means, and she says it's a group that meets to listen to and talk about Dehlin's podcasts. Not sure he wants his stuff labeled that way, but that's what they consider it.

I have only listened to a limited number of his podcasts, and honestly, I don't think he cares what his stuff is labeled. I think he enjoys hearing himself and I think he likes attention; from wherever it comes. I do not think he has a specific goal in mind with his podcast (ie to keep people in the LDS faith, to drive them away), I just think he likes to talk about the issues and more specifically, whatever will generate clicks. As others have said, his questions are often intended to lead to a specific response, if not outright bait someone.

[UtahsMrSports]

Yep, bringing up this one again.........

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2063440-155/host-of-mormon-stories-podcast-faces

[Sullyute]

Yep, bringing up this one again.........

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2063440-155/host-of-mormon-stories-podcast-faces

If they are going to have a court of love, then the outcome has already been decided. It's been nice having you in the tribe John. I am sure I will see plenty of you in the media.

[NorthwestUteFan]

This is still a 16th Century solution to a 21st Century problem. The three-fold purposes of this pre-determined monkey trial is to embarrass John, to tattoo a big scarlet A (for Apostate) on his chest to scare off the believers, and to prove once and for all that the SP and High Counselors do in fact hold some real power. And they will begin with a prayer, point out that he was given direct orders which he subsequently violated (because they were impossible to follow), and will slap him in the face with their symbolic powers and priesthoods, and then tell him they love him.

John will be better off without the IKEA of religions in his life. It will be painful at first but it gets better.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

My project was legit, but my environmental science merit badge was not. They hand those out like candy at camp.

Wait, are you suggesting that including this in my CV as an environmental biologist isn't carrying as much weight as I was led to believe by my scoutmaster?

EDIT: Sorry. I just realize that that comment is about six months old.

[DrumNFeather]

If they are going to have a court of love, then the outcome has already been decided. It's been nice having you in the tribe John. I am sure I will see plenty of you in the media.
In many ways I think this is probably the outcome that allows him to get more mileage out of his martyrdom (which he's been working on for a while, it seems) .

I feel for those who hitch their wagon to him.

[UtahsMrSports]

In many ways I think this is probably the outcome that allows him to get more mileage out of his martyrdom (which he's been working on for a while, it seems) .

I feel for those who hitch their wagon to him.

Yep. This guy has an almost insatiable need for attention and he will get as much as he can out of this.

[LA Ute]

I met John Dehlin once and liked him a lot personally. I don't have much sympathy for his approach to his situation, however.

[OrangeUte]

He's promoting this too much for my taste.

[UtahsMrSports]

Dehlin is trending nationally, which is far more than even he could have dreamed of, im sure.

I know that some people will disagree with his leaders decision, but when you look at it, did they really have a choice? Hasn't he been begging for this?

[mUUser]

Why did I think Dehlin had been resolved already?

A number of his issues are real hot buttons for my kids' generation......equality for women & gays, historical accuracy, lame, boring & outdated church services, doctrine that doesn't speak to them. I remind them to focus on the atonement & eternal marriage/families, and then endure till the end in faith, hoping that strikes a strong enough chord with them that allows the other stuff to slide. Honestly, I can't be sure it's resonating. Based on my own observations, my gut tells me while missionaries are at an all-time high, our generation of young members are leaving at an alarmingly high rate, either before, or after their missions.

Two side notes: 1. And that doesn't even take into account that the YW of today will have to start wearing those ridiculously ill-fitting garments. Yikes. and 2. I saw a staunch lady member, who is a former RS President and whose hubby currently serves in the HC, wear dress slacks for the first time 2 weeks ago. The tide is a changing my friends, like it or not.

[LA Ute]

I personally think this take is over the top but it is a little bit funny.

BREAKING NEWS: Lucifer Cast Out of Heaven for Simply “Asking Questions”

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2015/01/breaking-news-lucifer-cast-out-of.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sullyute]

I personally think this take is over the top but it is a little bit funny.

BREAKING NEWS: Lucifer Cast Out of Heaven for Simply “Asking Questions”

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2015/01/breaking-news-lucifer-cast-out-of.html?m=1


I found it humorous. I don't know Dehlin personally, and haven't listened to one of his podcasts in a couple years, but I think that he has done wonderful things to help many mormons stay in the fold, and many more to find a soft landing outside of it. He has been extremely deft in his use of social and traditional media (which the church is now using against him). It is too bad that things had to end this way, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.

[UtahsMrSports]

I personally think this take is over the top but it is a little bit funny.

BREAKING NEWS: Lucifer Cast Out of Heaven for Simply “Asking Questions”

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2015/01/breaking-news-lucifer-cast-out-of.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hahaha that was pretty funny.

But at the same time, it also epitomizes what I hate about this "debate"

One side of the debate says "How can you punish us? We are just asking questions! Honest and sincere questions! We love the mormon church!" while their actions scream "We're not gonna take it! NO! We aint gonna take it! We're not gonna take it, anymore!"

The other side says "Lucifer was jsut asking questions too!" Yep, a lucifer comparison. About as original and interesting as a hitler comparison.

And, any rational or reasonable discussion is drowned by the shouting vocal minorities.

As groups like those led by Dehlin and Kelly get more radical (and they already are), the moderates will either be pushed back toward the LDS church or to more moderate groups. The LDS church has already demonstrated that it will gladly listen to less radical groups and will even implement some change. I think that these groups will eventually become less and less in the news as time goes on, for a while.

[mUUser]

......As groups like those led by Dehlin and Kelly get more radical (and they already are), the moderates will either be pushed back toward the LDS church or to more moderate groups. The LDS church has already demonstrated that it will gladly listen to less radical groups and will even implement some change.....


Is it largely legal support for gay marriage, instituting priesthood for women, unlocking LDS history, and meshing religion & science that is considered radical, or is there something actually radical that is being pushed by Dehlin, Kelly et al.?

I'd be interested in examples of LDS moderation vs LDS radicalism.

[LA Ute]

Is it largely legal support for gay marriage, instituting priesthood for women, unlocking LDS history, and meshing religion & science that is considered radical, or is there something actually radical that is being pushed by Dehlin, Kelly et al.?

I'd be interested in examples of LDS moderation vs LDS radicalism.

Excellent questions. I am not sure what I think but am very interested in this discussion.

To me the most important thing is that people who believe in the divinity of the church can find a way to make and keep the covenants involved in membership, starting with and perhaps emphasizing the baptismal covenants on which all the otners rest, IMO. If they can do that there is lots of room for different points of view on many issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UtahFanSir]

Sonia Johnson Redux...similar story, similar outcome.

[DrumNFeather]

Sonia Johnson Redux...similar story, similar outcome.
We lived in her old ward out here a few years ago.

[LA Ute]

Here's a point of view I find pretty persuasive, and evidence-based. (I'm a lawyer; I like evidence in matters like this.)

http://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2015/01/for-record.html

[NorthwestUteFan]

Is it largely legal support for gay marriage, instituting priesthood for women, unlocking LDS history, and meshing religion & science that is considered radical, or is there something actually radical that is being pushed by Dehlin, Kelly et al.?

I'd be interested in examples of LDS moderation vs LDS radicalism.

I don't think anything is wrong with any of those beliefs or positions on their own. If they truly cared that members held those positions then nearly everybody would be in trouble.

The problem seems to come in when people speak these thoughts out loud, especially in public. And a podcast is going to be seen as an ÜBER public attempt to lead people away from the church.

This is why I say that Mormonism could use a reform movement. We need to be able to discuss challenging issues, reach conclusions, and still remain fully accepted in their wards despite having divergent beliefs.

[LA Ute]

This is why I say that Mormonism could use a reform movement. We need to be able to discuss challenging issues, reach conclusions, and still remain fully accepted in their wards despite having divergent beliefs.

So far so good. But you don't think people ought to be able to openly challenge the church's truth claims and remain members in good standing, do you?

[NorthwestUteFan]

So far so good. But you don't think people ought to be able to openly challenge the church's truth claims and remain members in good standing, do you?

Perhaps not. But when the truth very obviously supports the position against that of the church, then what to do?

It seems to me that the church fears a pursuasive argument contrary to their position more than anything, particularly if the person making that argument has a large audience.

For what it is worth I think tjr church is well within their rights to exclude anybody they choose. I also don't think it matters what happens next Sunday, the outcome is already determined. The only opinion that matters is the Stake President's, and he already feels disrespected by JD because he didn't immediately delete the Mormon Stories website and podcast archive; delete his Ordain Women profile and stop pointing out where he believes the church could eliminate some points of institutionalized misogyny; change his stance on marriage equality and disregard all of his research that shows the grave damage the church's position causes to people.

The reason I am upset about this turn of events is this proves to me that there is no place for me in the church, unless I keep my mouth closed. The worst part about it is the church will strongarm me by denying my access to important family milestones such as my childrens' marriages.

[U-Ute]

"The Coming Crackdown On Mormon Liberals"

I haven't really paid attention to all of this noise, but I noticed you guys had quite a healthy thread here. I thought you may be interested in this perspective.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/19/the-coming-crackdown-on-mormon-liberals.html

[UtahsMrSports]

"The Coming Crackdown On Mormon Liberals"

I haven't really paid attention to all of this noise, but I noticed you guys had quite a healthy thread here. I thought you may be interested in this perspective.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/19/the-coming-crackdown-on-mormon-liberals.html

I made it almost through two paragraphs. Stopped reading here:

" to resign from Ordain Women and delete her writings on women’s ordination or lose her temple recommendation, which allows her to attend church "

That is either a deliberate, ridiculous stretch of the truth to fan the flames and get people riled up or a very negligent error that would lead me to question how seriously I should take the rest of it. Just a thing with me, I tend to tune out once someone misrepresents the position of the person or thing they are arguing against.

[LA Ute]

I made it almost through two paragraphs. Stopped reading here:

" to resign from Ordain Women and delete her writings on women’s ordination or lose her temple recommendation, which allows her to attend church "

That is either a deliberate, ridiculous stretch of the truth to fan the flames and get people riled up or a very negligent error that would lead me to question how seriously I should take the rest of it. Just a thing with me, I tend to tune out once someone misrepresents the position of the person or thing they are arguing against.

It's hard to write about a church's beliefs without putting in some effort to make sure you have it right. Lazy journalism.

[mUUser]

I made it almost through two paragraphs. Stopped reading here:

" to resign from Ordain Women and delete her writings on women’s ordination or lose her temple recommendation, which allows her to attend church "

That is either a deliberate, ridiculous stretch of the truth to fan the flames and get people riled up or a very negligent error that would lead me to question how seriously I should take the rest of it. Just a thing with me, I tend to tune out once someone misrepresents the position of the person or thing they are arguing against.


I stopped at the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Really Ms Joyce??? How basic of a mistake can you make?

[NorthwestUteFan]

I stopped at the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Really Ms Joyce??? How basic of a mistake can you make?

Maybe she can't wrap her head around an organizational name containing TWO possessive clauses.

[mpfunk]

So far so good. But you don't think people ought to be able to openly challenge the church's truth claims and remain members in good standing, do you?

Yes, I think that they should be able to remain members of the church in good standing.

[mpfunk]

Excellent questions. I am not sure what I think but am very interested in this discussion.

To me the most important thing is that people who believe in the divinity of the church can find a way to make and keep the covenants involved in membership, starting with and perhaps emphasizing the baptismal covenants on which all the otners rest, IMO. If they can do that there is lots of room for different points of view on many issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The church is certainly not sending the message these days that there is "lots of room for different points of view on many issues." There are no room for different points of view on women holding the Priesthood for example. There is no room for different points of view on the homosexual marriage. There is no room for a different point of view of the problematic issue of the LDS church promoting rape culture. Etc. etc. etc.

[mpfunk]

I don't know about messages being sent, but there certainly is room for different points of view. Every ward I've belonged to in the past decade included members with different points of view on the two examples you mention.



I have no idea what you are talking about, but please don't explain.

I think this is among the best examples of promoting rape culture.


Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

How about continuing to promote the Miracle of Forgiveness without distancing from the awful things that was said about rape in it.

[UtahsMrSports]

Maybe she can't wrap her head around an organizational name containing TWO possessive clauses.

She is such a rebel! that will show them!

[LA Ute]

The church is certainly not sending the message these days that there is "lots of room for different points of view on many issues." There are no room for different points of view on women holding the Priesthood for example. There is no room for different points of view on the homosexual marriage. There is no room for a different point of view of the problematic issue of the LDS church promoting rape culture. Etc. etc. etc.

mp, I love you but I strongly disagree. I said, "To me the most important thing is that people who believe in the divinity of the church can find a way to make and keep the covenants involved in membership, starting with and perhaps emphasizing the baptismal covenants on which all the others rest, IMO."

If someone believes in the divinity of the church, then you can express your different point of view accordingly: "I really believe women can and should hold the priesthood, but since I believe the prophet is the prophet and I sustain him, I'll wait until that approach to the priesthood is changed, and I believe it will be." I think there is lots less room in the church for someone to say "The prophet's just wrong about that and I am going to say so publicly and continue not only calling public attention to my point of view, but also trying to persuade other members that he is wrong."

Your comment about the church promoting rape culture is so far "out there" that taking the comment seriously is very difficult.

[#1 Utefan]

I think this is among the best examples of promoting rape culture.



https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

How about continuing to promote the Miracle of Forgiveness without distancing from the awful things that was said about rape in it.


I was was ignoring this thread because this debate is exhausting and never goes anywhere. Now I make the mistake of checking it out and get to read about promoting "rape culture"?! Comments like this just make me think there are some out there just want to find more reasons to create controversy and things to get upset at the LDS church about.

for all the LDS church's perceived faults, there are some very good values and life skills to be gained for following many of its basic teachings. When you look at the problems of society today, why not try to focus more on the good things to be found in your religion rather than perceived negatives or those you may feel to be at odds with societal trends?

Questioning certain ideas and doctrine in and of itself isn't and shouldn't be a problem. That is an individual thing. I think the problem starts when people decide to start grinding an axe publicly and try to aggressively recruit others over to their point of view.

I personally don't like when people criticize my beliefs or imply I'm not thinking for myself or deeply enough if I don't share their feelings or interpretation of some idea or doctrinal point. I can think for myself and determine what I feel is important to me. This is typically where people like Dehlin and Kelly run into trouble.

[mUUser]

I think this is among the best examples of promoting rape culture.



https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng

How about continuing to promote the Miracle of Forgiveness without distancing from the awful things that was said about rape in it.

If a woman wears an immodest dress, it encourages the guy to quietly hum a hymn to chase bad thoughts away (let's say....Choose The Right), likely increasing the spirit presence for the guy. So. in a way, an immodestly dressed woman is helping men become more spiritual. Who doesn't need little more spiritual growth in their life? I say go for it ladies. :Evil:

[DrumNFeather]

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2015/01/20/the_real_reason_why_one_mormon_is_on_trial.html

[Rocker Ute]

I think the real question is will John Dehlin appear in a press conference in a sleeveless dress tomorrow? Oh, My!

[LA Ute]

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2015/01/20/the_real_reason_why_one_mormon_is_on_trial.html

The author of that piece has supplemental comments here:

http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/01/20/why-john-dehlin-faces-church-discipline/

[SeattleUte]

The author of that piece has supplemental comments here:

http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/01/20/why-john-dehlin-faces-church-discipline/

So failure to believe all of these doctrines warrants excommunication: "(1) The existence and nature of God; (2) Christ being the literal Savior of the World and his Atonement being absolutely necessary to our salvation; (3) the exclusive priesthood authority restored through the Church; (4) The Book of Mormon as scripture and the revealed word of God; and (5) the governance of the Church by doctrine and revelation through inspired leaders."

They need to figure out a more effifcient way to excommunicate, because there are millions of Mormons who deserve it by this standard.

[LA Ute]

So failure to believe all of these doctrines warrants excommunication: "(1) The existence and nature of God; (2) Christ being the literal Savior of the World and his Atonement being absolutely necessary to our salvation; (3) the exclusive priesthood authority restored through the Church; (4) The Book of Mormon as scripture and the revealed word of God; and (5) the governance of the Church by doctrine and revelation through inspired leaders."

They need to figure out a more effifcient way to excommunicate, because there are millions of Mormons who deserve it by this standard.

I'm not convinced there are millions of Mormons who devote lots of their time, energy and creativity to convincing other Mormons not to believe in those things -- in as public and high-profile a manner as possible. Once they get going on that they'll be in a good position to be excommunicated.

[Scratch]

So failure to believe all of these doctrines warrants excommunication: "(1) The existence and nature of God; (2) Christ being the literal Savior of the World and his Atonement being absolutely necessary to our salvation; (3) the exclusive priesthood authority restored through the Church; (4) The Book of Mormon as scripture and the revealed word of God; and (5) the governance of the Church by doctrine and revelation through inspired leaders."

They need to figure out a more effifcient way to excommunicate, because there are millions of Mormons who deserve it by this standard.

Nope. To use language a lawyer should understand, you're leaving out a couple of the essential elements of the excommunication cause of action. But I'm sure you already know that and are just screwing around.

[LA Ute]

Nope. To use language a lawyer should understand, you're leaving out a couple of the essential elements of the excommunication cause of action. But I'm sure you already know that and are just screwing around.

Scratch, you have a mean and suspicious nature. SU would never do such a thing.

[Switzerland]

A very overlooked purpose of excommunication is that it is a tender mercy for the perpetrator. A person who has made covenants and broken them will be held accountable for his actions, and all who he has led astray. Generally when people leave the church, not many others are affected, outside of immediate family and a few close friends. The more vocal that an individual becomes, the larger his sphere of influence grows, and his damnation becomes greater.

Excommunication isn't about the church saving face. It is the last straw after the person's local file leaders have tried to set him straight. Presently, we don't know how large the sphere is that John created, but he will be judged by it, and since he has apparently shown no remorse or desire to change that, he will actually have a lighter judgment for his remaining actions that would occur while he is no longer within the covenant.

How seriously does God take His covenants? Realize that people in biblical times, no matter how wicked they became, refused to break their oaths and covenants out of fear of God. See Amalickiah for example. Additionally, when the long-prophesied seven years of tribulation finally commence, where The Lord's pre-millennial destroying angels will be loosed to cleanse the earth, God's covenant breakers are going to be the first people stricken.

D&C 112:
24 Behold, avengeance (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of bdesolation (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#), ofcweeping (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#), of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my ahouse (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) shall it bbegin (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#), and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who haveaprofessed (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) to know my bname (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) and have not cknown (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) me, and havedblasphemed (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

[UtahsMrSports]

So failure to believe all of these doctrines warrants excommunication: "(1) The existence and nature of God; (2) Christ being the literal Savior of the World and his Atonement being absolutely necessary to our salvation; (3) the exclusive priesthood authority restored through the Church; (4) The Book of Mormon as scripture and the revealed word of God; and (5) the governance of the Church by doctrine and revelation through inspired leaders."

They need to figure out a more effifcient way to excommunicate, because there are millions of Mormons who deserve it by this standard.

In the immortal words of limp bizkit.....

Keep trollin, trollin, trollin,
Keep trollin, trollin, trollin

[mUUser]

A very overlooked purpose of excommunication is that it is a tender mercy for the perpetrator. A person who has made covenants and broken them will be held accountable for his actions, and all who he has led astray. Generally when people leave the church, not many others are affected, outside of immediate family and a few close friends. The more vocal that an individual becomes, the larger his sphere of influence grows, and his damnation becomes greater.

Excommunication isn't about the church saving face. It is the last straw after the person's local file leaders have tried to set him straight. Presently, we don't know how large the sphere is that John created, but he will be judged by it, and since he has apparently shown no remorse or desire to change that, he will actually have a lighter judgment for his remaining actions that would occur while he is no longer within the covenant.

How seriously does God take His covenants? Realize that people in biblical times, no matter how wicked they became, refused to break their oaths and covenants out of fear of God. See Amalickiah for example. Additionally, when the long-prophesied seven years of tribulation finally commence, where The Lord's pre-millennial destroying angels will be loosed to cleanse the earth, God's covenant breakers are going to be the first people stricken.

D&C 112:
24 Behold, avengeance (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of bdesolation (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#), ofcweeping (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#), of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my ahouse (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) shall it bbegin (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#), and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who haveaprofessed (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) to know my bname (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) and have not cknown (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) me, and havedblasphemed (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/112.10#) against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.


I'm hoping there's a better sense of proportionality in our judgement.

[eldiente]

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/author/dearjohndehlin/

Convincing evidence that Mr. Dehlin only shares correspondence that paints things that match his point of view. Also engages in censorship on a routine basis - not exactly the open-minded and tolerant demeanor he would claim??

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[mUUser]

At about 5:50 into the segment, the sisters answered the "priesthood" question.

When will this idea end -- that since women can procreate, men have the priesthood. Silly beyond measure.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wave-mormon-missionaries-young-energetic-female/story?id=27924269

[mpfunk]

At about 5:50 into the segment, the sisters answered the "priesthood" question.

When will this idea end -- that since women can procreate, men have the priesthood. Silly beyond measure.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wave-mormon-missionaries-young-energetic-female/story?id=27924269

Of all that explanations for women not have the priesthood, the one about motherhood being the counter to priesthood is the most ridiculous.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[UtahsMrSports]

John Dehlin has his council tonight. Anyone care to venture a guess on the outcome?

[Applejack]

John Dehlin has his council tonight. Anyone care to venture a guess on the outcome?

Gonzo. Which is probably what he wants at this point.

[NorthwestUteFan]

There is only one possible outcome tonight, it is set in stone. The PR folks at LDS Newsroom are sending out press releases asking journalists to note that he is being exed for apostasy, and not for advocacy of marriage equality and gender equality. This should play well in the Jello Belt, but outside of the bubble it seems to be a long-term loss. It seems their definition of 'apostasy' is not simply not following church doctrine, but rather not following church leaders.

He was told to, "Publicly renounce and apologize for the false concepts you have widely expressed regarding God, Jesus Christ, the Atonement, the Restoration of the gospel, and the Book of Mormon". And also to take down Mormon Stories.

John admitted that he doesn't quite know what to think of God and Jesus, and frankly who really does? Billions of people smarter than I have wrestled with this question for millennia and we are no closer to a single answer.

John said he struggles with belief in the restoration, in light of Joseph Smith's...ahem...sexual proclivities, and his emotional/ecclesiastical abuse of friends (and especially young women) to get his way. Who doesn't struggle with this question?

And of course the last issue causes significant problems with the Book of Mormon and the Apostasy/Restoration narrative, along with all of the other Joseph Smith-isms (temple, priesthood, sole authority to speak for God, modern revelation, etc).

Many people I know outside the church will say, "I agree, those things ARE in fact not believable". So in a sense he is being kicked out of the club for not being credulous.

This will be painful. He will be humiliated, perhaps unintentionally, and will not be permitted enough time to answer all the accusations. The High Council will all vote to support the Stake President. Afterward they will all tell him they love him, and in that passive-aggressive Mormon way tell him how 'sad' they are for him.

And then life will go on.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

It is never going to end, and I'll tell you why. Most Mormons don't care very much about this question, so they are content with an unsatisfactory explanation. They just need something short and easy to explain if anyone asks. This fits the bill.

Yes. This one is up there with "tannic acid."

[LA Ute]

Dehlin wants to challenge -- very publicly -- the foundations of the church's legitimacy. According to the Tribune he makes his living doing that. Fair enough. The church may say, "Go ahead and do that, but you can't remain a member if you do." Also fair enough. Whatever else might be said about the guy, he is no martyr.

[UtahsMrSports]

There is only one possible outcome tonight, it is set in stone. The PR folks at LDS Newsroom are sending out press releases asking journalists to note that he is being exed for apostasy, and not for advocacy of marriage equality and gender equality. This should play well in the Jello Belt, but outside of the bubble it seems to be a long-term loss. It seems their definition of 'apostasy' is not simply not following church doctrine, but rather not following church leaders.

He was told to, "Publicly renounce and apologize for the false concepts you have widely expressed regarding God, Jesus Christ, the Atonement, the Restoration of the gospel, and the Book of Mormon". And also to take down Mormon Stories.

John admitted that he doesn't quite know what to think of God and Jesus, and frankly who really does? Billions of people smarter than I have wrestled with this question for millennia and we are no closer to a single answer.

John said he struggles with belief in the restoration, in light of Joseph Smith's...ahem...sexual proclivities, and his emotional/ecclesiastical abuse of friends (and especially young women) to get his way. Who doesn't struggle with this question?

And of course the last issue causes significant problems with the Book of Mormon and the Apostasy/Restoration narrative, along with all of the other Joseph Smith-isms (temple, priesthood, sole authority to speak for God, modern revelation, etc).

Many people I know outside the church will say, "I agree, those things ARE in fact not believable". So in a sense he is being kicked out of the club for not being credulous.

This will be painful. He will be humiliated, perhaps unintentionally, and will not be permitted enough time to answer all the accusations. The High Council will all vote to support the Stake President. Afterward they will all tell him they love him, and in that passive-aggressive Mormon way tell him how 'sad' they are for him.

And then life will go on.

I know that you think negatively of the LDS church, and hey I've got no issues with that, but come on man. This post reeks of over the top paranoia. Church PR has said almost nothing beyond "no comment" throughout this whole thing. Certainly nothing on any specific case.

And not enough time to answer questions? Really? Come on.........

[NorthwestUteFan]

I like the level of detail in your prediction.

Not enough time to answer all the questions? Is that a thing? I was only ever part of one of these things, and I think there was all the time in the world to answer questions. Or maybe he is planning a filibuster once he gets the floor? Now that would be a Mormon Story.

To be honest I was projecting based on the written experiences of Paul Toscano, Margaret Merrill Toscano, Simon Southerton, Lyndon Lamborn, Lavina Fielding Anderson, Lynne Whitesides, Brent Metcalfe, Maxine Hanks, the historian at Harvard (can't recall his name), Adrian Larson and his wife (that was weird), Avraham Gileadi (the church later apologized to him and erased his excommunication), Grant Palmer (SP at his Disfellowship mtg refused to let him discuss the issues for which he was accused of apostasy even though the SP was given a dossier on Palmer by SLC, and he resigned at his Excommunication mtg rather than sit through the humiliation), etc. But I am sure these were all isolated incidents and the proceedings in Logan tonight will be completely different.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Dehlin wants to challenge -- very publicly -- the foundations of the church's legitimacy. According to the Tribune he makes his living doing that. Fair enough. The church may say, "Go ahead and do that, but you can't remain a member if you do." Also fair enough. Whatever else might be said about the guy, he is no martyr.

I agree with you that he should probably be excommunicated.

I was making a point that it seems to be a long-term losing strategy to push the story that he is being excommunicated for apostasy based on the statements I outlined above.

We are all on our own journey to discover our relationship with God. Everybody in the church will cite a variation on a theme and some people will proffess no real belief in God at all.

There are significant reasons to doubt all of the foundational claims of the church. According to numerous conference talks (especially by Utah Fan and Pilot Extraordinaire Dieter Uchtdorf), we allow doubts.

I would state that all members have some level of doubt. Doubt is healthy. Challenging our doubts is the best way to strengthen our faith or to find the truth. I believe we should be encouraged to explore our doubts as a pathway toward our own enlightenment, or whatever we want to call it. This may even be the desire of the church.

Just keep these doubts to yourself.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Church PR has said almost nothing beyond "no comment" throughout this whole thing. Certainly nothing on any specific case. .

If John Dehlin can be trusted at his word, he claims to be in possession of emails or letters from one of the top church PR guys that was sent to members of the media detailing the talking points.

If he CAN'T be trusted, then the SP should record the meeting for his own protection.

[UtahsMrSports]

If John Dehlin can be trusted at his word, he claims to be in possession of emails or letters from one of the top church PR guys that was sent to members of the media detailing the talking points.

If he CAN'T be trusted, then the SP should record the meeting for his own protection.

Im going to have to scratch my head at that. Kk, jd, and peggy fletcher stack have been anxious to post anything and evrtthing they can get their hands on.

[LA Ute]

I will say again that I've met him and found him to be a very impressive and friendly guy. Trite as it may sound, I feel bad that this is happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

I was actually talking to my SP about disciplinary councils (nothing to do with Dehlin). His take on them was pretty enlightening, particularly the amount of time he spends with a person leading up to and preparing him for a council.

I'd say that if what we discussed is typical (and frankly it is) the outcome of the council is not determined before it begins unless the person the council is for has determined it. Dehlin seems to certainly have done that.

Considering the careful process required for a disciplinary council I would doubt the church has released anything regarding talking points specific to Dehlin. They are far too savvy for that. If anything it was probably an explanation of what happens in a council and what happens at times of excommunication in general. Getting out in front of that with a media that doesn't understand the process (and probably thinks it operates like a court of law) makes sense.

Ironically John Dehlin has a well documented history of twisting the facts and then recanting when the actual facts appear, with multiple revisions. The more I learn the more I realize he is much like the things he criticizes of past church leaders.

I used to admire his approach, over the past year or so and through some direct and indirect instances involving him I've gotten quite the distaste for him. Too bad.

The good news is this will be profitable for him, he'll make lots more money outside than in.

[UtahsMrSports]

A good friends older brother seems to have been spearheading a vigil in logan tonight. Ive been following the facebook page and its been interesting.

Jd has attracted faithful lds, fringe lds, former lds, anti lds, obsessed axe grinders and even some of the "i dont know why im here! But i just love to protest and yell and wave a sign!!!" Crowd. Pretty diverse group.

[Applejack]

Well, he's already become the second most famous Utah State grad student of all time, after that guy who used to wear big diapers to basketball games.

haha. Don't forget Merlin Olsen - he was an offensive lineman in the 40s or something.

[UtahsMrSports]

He did not get an answer last night. With the extra spotlight on this case, and the fact that there was a throng of supporters outside, I am not surprised that the council has decided to take their time with this.