Quantcast

Comments about ‘LDS spokeswoman discusses church discipline with radio host Doug Fabrizio’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 17 2014 8:39 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
michael.jensen369
Lethbridge, 00

You just gotta love journalists with that attack-dog approach. Sister Isom did a great job IMO.

I M LDS 2
Provo, UT

IMHO, Sister Isom came across very poorly. I was quite disappointed.

Owen
Heber City, UT

This has to be the first and only time Doug Fabrizio has been described as an attack dog. Only twice did he push very hard: once asking where he could find a doctrinal prohibition against female priesthood; once when he asked for the church's definition of a public conversation. Sister Isom ducked both very simple questions. The worst, however was her leaving the very false impression that discussions about controversial issues are welcome in church. The PR department with nothing to hide wouldn't take on-air questions, a standard feature of thus show.

slowdive
Salt Lake City, UT

have to say Sister Isom was put in a tough spot by the Brethren but, to my ear, quoted way too much Bible and Verse-type language ---- felt like i was a Mia Maid being a bit talked down to (platitudes). the Ordain Women movement is asking serious Qs that should be addressed, yes, seriously. it has been good to see the Church admit to some of errors of their past ways via heavily-footnoted ( = at least a veneer of sophistication) repositioning statements (on Polygamy, Blacks and the Priesthood, DNA research, etc) on LDS.org. that said, all im reminded of is what happened in the early 1990s. the september 6. except nowadays with the internet people have access to so much more info, exposing the stickier/trickier elements of LDS origins. reverting back to a default of excommunication likely won't help matters. more mormon kids will likely join the ranks of the Nones -- deciding Org R is not for them. just my jack mormon 0.02c.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

slowdive:

The questions were answered by Elder Oaks in the last Conference.

Kate Kelly is not asking questions - she is staging media publicity stunts to shame the Church into agreeing with her. That is grounds for disclipline. Why immediately go to the NY Times when the Disciplinary Council letter was received?

I don't think The Lord cares much for the court of public opinion...

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

I thought Ally Isom did a great job fielding the various questions and had a lot of great responses to Fabrizio's questions. One thing she pointed out that I think is important to remember is that excommunication is not the starting point of church discipline, and it's not a foregone conclusion that that will be the outcome of these disciplinary counsels. Furthermore, excommunication is not the same thing as expulsion -- the intent is not to kick the person out of the church, and at no time is the person asked to not attend church meetings. There are certain things the individual is asked not to do while at church meetings, but this is not a matter of kicking out religious dissidents.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

"....In the 51-minute interview, Isom also emphasized the central role of love...."
______________________________

If it’s done in love, why continue using terms like excommunicate and disfellowship? Excommunicate implies that you no longer speak to them. Disfellowship sounds like you are no longer to be friendly towards them. Those archaic terms belong to another era and need to be retired.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

@Craig Clark
I understand your point -- the labels are somewhat archaic. Not sure if you're LDS or not, but one interesting thing about church discipline is that it's a very private thing. I served as an executive secretary to our local bishop for a while, and was often surprised when (in the privacy of a bishopric meeting) it came up that someone in the ward could not fill a particular role because he/she was currently under church discipline (either disfellowshipped or excommunicated). I was surprised because I had no previous knowledge of the matter, even during my role as the bishop's secretary and my involvement in all the weekly bishopric meetings and ward council meetings. So my point is that, yes, these are somewhat archaic words, but it's important to understand that those individuals are not shut out by the general populace of the church and those matters are not discussed publicly by the church as those matters are very private.

slowdive
Salt Lake City, UT

redwing:
you've got to understand that from my a-religious, relativistic perspective no one has a direct pipeline to God, however understood/defined. (i happen to think the Eastern Traditions, having to do w Mind/Consciousness are closer to the truth of the matter.)
i think it was hillel who might have put it best (paraphrasing): all religions preach the Golden Rule; all else is but commentary (ie, opinion not fact; one person's burning in the bosom another's heartburn) also, in case you missed it, here is Kate Kelly in her own words describing how things have shaken out.
google her opinion piece in The Guardian
"I may be excommunicated from my church for asking for equal rights" (June 16)
i think the Church would benefit from more strong-minded women----those asking Qs, pushing boundaries----of the Mormon Expositor kind. mormom women should be loud and proud like their feminist forebearers, again, IMO, only n=1.

President Camacho
SLC, UT

@RedWings
"I don't think The Lord cares much for the court of public opinion..."

Then why has John Dehlin's excommunication been put on hold? What about the 1890 Manifesto? Seems to me like he cares more than you think.

Cheesecake
Salt Lake City, UT

I actually really enjoyed all of the interviews, and Doug did an excellent job. He asked great questions, and I feel he was equally direct with all 3 (technically four, Joanna Brooks) of them. I find the following interesting though:

What do you have to support your position?

Kelly: Articles of faith (we believe that he will yet reveal...), Doctrine and Covenants (Emma Smith asked Joseph to pray about something and Section 89 was the result?), Official Declaration 2 (blacks getting the priesthood).

Isom: There's nothing in the scriptures saying that women cannot hold the priesthood. (paraphrasing of course), but that is how we currently understand it.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

slowdrive:

Thanks for your comment and clarification...

From my perspective, I belive that we do have access to God through personal revelation and the Holy Ghost. I have had experinces where I have been prompted and led to certain decisions in my life.

I have served with many strong-minded women in the church. In our council, the women who attend have their ideas and opinions sought by our bishop. My wife served as a Relief Society President and basically became our bishop's main source of counsel and ideas.

My priesthood is given to me to bless others. It is not a status thing. I don't get to pick a better pew or anything becasue I am an elder. This isn't an equal rights issue. To reduce the issue to that shows me that Ms. Kelly really doesn't understand the priesthood or the church. Her argument is self-centered, when priesthood duty is centered on others.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

@Cheesecake
I actually think Isom didn't handle that question very well, as there are passages in the Bible, D&C, and Articles of Faith that state men are to hold the offices of the priesthood. That being said, I wouldn't have a problem if President Monson received a revelation allowing women to receive the priesthood. It could very well be that at some point in the future, the world will be so wicked that we could benefit from having additional priesthood holders. I don't really see that happening (just my own view), but it also wouldn't bother me. What DOES bother me is the way Kate Kelly is seeking the change. It's one thing to ask a question and have a personal belief that women should hold the priesthood, quite another to start a movement and approach the subject in a demanding way. That's just not the way change is effected in Christ's church.

maclouie
Falconer, NY

@President Camacho

Don't know why JD excommunication is on hold. Your opinion and my opinion probably differ here. However, 1890 Manifesto had nothing to do with public opinion but with confiscation and destruction of the Church by the U.S. Government.

slowdive
Salt Lake City, UT

redwing thx for your thoughts. yes, personal inspiration - whether via your H Ghost, or via my Sunday freshies at Alta - this is the way to go..... ie, again, IMO, one does not nec need to have a mediated experience w the Divine (variously interpreted). (see W James Varieties of Religious Exp) where things go swervy is when any one Org R claims to have sole (soul) access to a Yellow Brick Road to God -- and that the only way to get to Heaven is to jump on that particular Eden Express (all religions can't all be right, right?)... i think what we're seeing w the Ordain Women movement is an example of a church that is not quite keeping up with the times. more and more women are roaring, women who have been the most oppressed throughout history (still are: acid to face in afghan, kidnapped in nigeria, etc). in comparison, pope francis is doing much to reduce his church's emphasis on Truth Claims and focusing instead on acts of kindness, openness, acceptance, that there is still a lot that is Not Known. maybe the LDS church will follow the lead of the Catholics.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

The Lord makes these decisions--not men or women. I don't believe women have any need or reason to have the priesthood. I also don't believe men will ever be able to have babies. God is the best assignor or responsibilities and he as made this clear. This whole discussion is so unproductive.

Kelly is only doing it to cause trouble--not because she is hurt. I don't believe very many people are fooled.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Cats,

"....Kelly is only doing it to cause trouble--not because she is hurt...."
______________________________

I don’t know what her motives are but I don’t see how she’s doing harm to anyone. Exposure to differing viewpoints is something a free society allows.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

@Cats
" I also don't believe men will ever be able to have babies. "

There are certain anatomical features you need for a fetus to develop; there's nothing that inherently requires male anatomy to have the priesthood.

Avenue
Vernal, UT

@Craig Clark
"I don’t know what her motives are but I don’t see how she’s doing harm to anyone."

Kate Kelly is an apostate who is trying to lead members away from the Church's standards. She is obviously doing plenty of harm.

rickdoctor
Chandler, AZ

Changes are inevitable, that's the way it works. The LDS Church is a 'baby church', having existed for only 184 years. Many changes have occurred during those 184 years. Many more will happen in the next 184, if the second coming does not pre-empt those, but then who can say what will occur during the 1000 years of Christ's rule? Priesthood, miracles, knowledge - peace on the earth will be an amazing change, so who can tell what will happen when the hearts of most of the people are kind and loving, instead of the baser human motivations. We will all be more open to what Jesus has said and will say, and that will exclude so many people trying to put words in His mouth that he never said. And we will stop trying to tell GOD what to do -- we are so good at that. Remember, 1000 years. Will our hearts be ready for Christ giving us the 'real deal' exponentially expanded...we are so petty with our arguments. We will look back and call ourselves very silly indeed!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments