I wonder if these women have looked into the Community of Christ (formerly known
as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). That church
has ordained women since 1984 and women apostles since 1998. Perhaps that
church would be a better fit for these women who want to be ordained.
The underlying assumption of the Ordain Women bunch is base on an erroneous
belief. They think they can change who gets ordained to the Priesthood the same
way they would change a department store's return policy on a dress (or
pant-suit perhaps) they don't like. Arguing with the clerk will get you
nowhere in this case. The manager cannot help either. You have to go
to the owner in this situation. And the owner is God. They have his direct line,
if they will use it. But they should understand that what they are asking is for
Him to rethink His entire creation. It is like asking him to change which gender
has babies. Of course, with God, nothing is impossible. However, it would seem
like a more reasonable request to ask God for understanding about why He did
things the way He did. Just sayin'.
People across the world are suffering and dying like flies while posters here
debate if god views man and women as equal humans, wake up. It has nothing to
do with god: it is simply corporate church management and mans politics. If
there is a personal compassionate god, let's hope he/she is pre-occupied
with higher priorities.
Craig Clark:wjalden's response covers it for me. However,
perhaps the more pertinent question is this:When someone takes a
highly visible and public stand squarely opposed to Church doctrine, do you
think the Church is somehow obligated to maintain their record as a member in
good standing, thus allowing them to promote their contrary views as a seemingly
faithful member of the Church?
Craig Clark: "Do you mean that once the Church has clearly stated its
position on something, a member is under obligation to not oppose it?"Depends on what the definition of "it" is. Politics, or
doctrine? John Dehlin is on record as pretty much doubting everything the LDS
Church claims about its history, or at least the supernatural aspects of its
history - the historicity of the the Book of Mormon, the origins of the Book of
Abraham, ad infinitum. To openly deny those things is to basically say you
aren't a believing Mormon.That's fine. I'm not a
believing Mormon, either. I left the Church long ago. But don't say those
things and expect the Church to accept you as a member.
JohnInSLC,"....As has been stated by others, it is not
"dignified questioning" that may be punished here, it is the undignified
refusal to accept the church's clear and consistent answers to their
questions...."______________________________Do you mean
that once the Church has clearly stated its position on something, a member is
under obligation to not oppose it?
My older brother knew John at BYU. They were friends, and still are. According
to my brother, John's story about doubts arising only after teaching
seminary are simplified, to say the least. He was already expressing doubts
about the Church while in college.I have listened to several of
John's podcasts. I left the Church when I probably had only a tenth of the
doubts that John has expressed. I suspect that part of the reason he remains is
that more Mormons are likely to listen to him if he just seems like an earnest
member expressing "doubts" rather than being an outsider attacking the
Church. Perhaps he even wants to be a martyr, though I don't doubt that he
still feels genuine fondness for it, just as I did for a long time.I
don't exactly love the Church, but it has every right to kick him and Kate
Kelly out of their club.
"I don't understand why dignified questioning of the beliefs and
policies of the Mormon church is considered something to be punished."Interloper:As has been stated by others, it is not
"dignified questioning" that may be punished here, it is the undignified
refusal to accept the church's clear and consistent answers to their
questions. This is a critical distinction that so many here fail to
Is the news the place for any of this informaiton. It is between the people and
God and the Bishop. Not the news, or for me to read about. It is not news.
Kelly and Dehlin are getting exactly what they'd hoped for, a chance to be
martyrs for their "cause".Unfortunately for them,
they're fighting a losing battle.If the LDS church is
"true", then why are they trying to tell God how to run his church?If the LDS church is "not true", then none of their proposed
changes will make any difference.
OK I didn't feel I had the right to comment on this since I am not a
Mormon, but I have to now. Ms. Kelly said when speaking of her situation..."As an attorney, it’s a violation of due process, and it
highlights that the system is unfair.”Censors correct me if I
am wrong...and I know you will :)...but, attorneys and due process and our legal
system are all part and parcel of civil law no? Wouldn't God and Jesus
Christ trump civil law? She is an attorney and can't figure that out?Also, if she really believed the CoJCoLdS was the true church
established by JS acting on authority by God how could she want to cherry pick
her beliefs? You either believe or you don't. If you don't you leave
and go find another one. Am I the only one who see that?As for
Dehlin, this is just the cause du jour for him. If you don't believe, move
on, it is not going to change for you on doctrinal issues people.Curtsey
I don't understand why dignified questioning of the beliefs and policies of
the Mormon church is considered something to be punished. If these beliefs and
policies are defensible, why not defend them instead? It also seems
odd that as many as 90% of Mormon women would oppose priesthood for women,
considering that most women consider their gender full-fledged human beings
capable of just about anything. It is not as if the all-male LDS leadership is
perfect. It has made plenty of mistakes. Less than 10 years ago
most people believed that relationships between homosexuals would never be
recognized as marriage. Fifty years ago, racial segregation was law in the
South. Women being excluded from leadership by some religions may end, as
Craig Clark From Boulder .. What you had to say sounds exactly like what someone
from Boulder & CU would say. You must not be an LDS member or you would know
that the church welcomes independent thought & civil dialogue but not what
is contrary to doctrines & principles of the church. We have our Agency but
once we become a baptized & confirmed member we agree to follow the
We can do or say what we want but we cannot choose the consequences.
To: Craig Clark - putting into action those negative independent views is the
thing that brings disciplinary action. There will always be those that want to
push or twist an issue for their own benefit but then there will be those
members who respect and live up to the commitments they have made. That's
Let me know when their 15 minutes of fame is up.
Well then, Can't they just form a new church?They could call it
the Traditional Church of Latter Day Saints.After all, breaking away
from some aspects of mainstream Christian teachings was the way the original LDS
Church was founded, right?They would be building on tradition.
sid and tiago:Marchant and Wallace were not excommunicated because
they asked questions about black men and the priesthood. It was because they
disagreed with the answer and felt they had the authority to do something
different, instead of leaving it to the Lord to know when the time was right.
I don't know about Wallace, but Marchant didn't return
after 1978. He just found other issues to justify being critical of the Church
and all its leaders, from the prophet to his bishop.
A nice pastor from a Protestant faith asked me recently, in our friendly
conversations on faith, and the Church, why we need any other books other than
the Bible. My response was the Bible doesn't teach us how to
excommunicate and that was certainly something that was done in New Testament
times (frankly the Book of Mormon teaches little on this as well, though Alma 6
does mention in the first few verses that wicked members, and yes they do exist
out there, need to be dealt with, just like Paul and Peter dealt with them, and
John in the Revelation.) We didn't know how to discipline rebellious
members until 200 years ago when prophets were taught to hold members
accountable. Just letting anything go isn't a way forward. The Lord
loves, yet He doesn't love so much to allow any behaviour in His church.
It takes a lot of effort to get excommunicated, and like many things in life, it
may happen in spirit long before it happens on paper.
I am curious just how Katie Kelly thinks the leadership should answer OW
question of women having the priesthood. I think it was answered and explained
in Elder Oaks talk in April. This is not a political organization, like she is
use to dealing with. You don't get to hold popular votes and continue to
take polls and campaign until you get your way."Whether by mine
own voice or by the voice of my servant, it is the same."
@dandawg Orem, UTI think you make some valid points. I have
found that some church members are uncomfortable with honest questions that they
are not familiar with, as you alluded to. I think The Church is making some
concerted efforts to be more open about some historical questions at the top
levels. It will require patience for this to evolve over time. Note, I'm
not talking here about changes to doctrine such as women holding the Priesthood,
I do not support that or believe it will ever happen. Perhaps some day The
Church will include some lessons in the manuals that address some of the issues
that people have not wanted to discuss much over the years which now have
created some questions in their minds. I believe some healthy clarification and
respectful discussion on those issues would be beneficial.
At least John Dehlin acknowledges his decisions have led to this. The
unfortunate thing is Mr. Dehlin either a) lied about him still wanting to be a
member of the LDS church on Wednesday or b) he's regretting sending an
email in January to his bishop requesting his name to be removed from records,
and nobody from the church to contact him. It was his choice. You can see the
letter by looking up "Stake President Letter to John Dehlin." Also, you
have to consider who's crying wolf. It certainly wasn't the church who
sent the letter and information to the press. It was John himself. He asked for
his name to be removed, for him not to be contacted, and then when the church
formally tries to honor his request he says "wait, hey world, look how
terrible they are, look what they are doing to me." He's making money
off of it, as more people will look at his website, and contribute money since
it's how he's made money for several years. He made these choices and
now he doesn't like the ramifications.
Unfortunately, I note a number of commentators who presume that Sister Kelly and
Brother Dehlin have already been excommunicated. We know more than usual
because Sister Kelly and Brother Dehlin have published communication from local
leaders that are usually confidential, but we do NOT know many the details.
They may well continue in a path that unfortunately will lead to
excommunication, but as far as I know, that has NOT yet occurred. While I do
NOT agree with or support all their views and/or tactics, I am NOT in a position
to judge them as individuals and neither are most of us. I hope we will be
careful to treat each other with as beloved brothers and sisters. I am grateful
that two of the "September 6" have chosen to make the changes in their
lives that have lead them back to full-faith and fellowship. I hope other will
follow in time and that we will welcome them with open arms.
John Dehlin's comment rings true: "I believe that our inability to
discuss openly difficult issues in the church is our biggest issue in the
church." The church's response--"There is room for questions and we
welcome sincere conversations"--is hollow. The church welcomes
'participation' only if it passes a narrow test of doctrinal purity.
Yes, 'bear your testimony,' but only if it fits the same official
template as everyone else's. My Sunday school classes have never accepted
sincere doubt--only comments of affirmation. Anyone who expresses doubt openly
is immediately treated like there is something wrong with them. Church is boring
because sincerity and individuality are stifled by monotonous quests to conform
thought, word, and deed to scriptural ideals. Not even that--sometimes I think
people in the scriptures were allowed to be more human than we are. I long for a
time when individuals matter more in the church, even if their views or actions
don't always conform to each and every official utterance.
@Sid 6.7I was curious about the same question. I found an article
about a member named Douglas Wallace who was excommunicated in 1976 for
ordaining a black man and another named Byron Marchant excommunicated in 1977
for protesting at General Conference against the church's position on
John Dehlin's podcasts helped me through a very dark time in my life. It
makes me sad to see people making him out to be a villain. He's not.
It's easy to cast judgement. It's much more difficult to try to
understand other people's perspective. John to be excommunicated? So
Sad to see them go, but unfortunately that is what happens when you take a
public position against a Church doctrine for all the world to see.Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said in the last GC to defend our faith...
As I have read the profiles of the hand full of supporters for Ordain Women, I
think it would be appropriate for the local Church leaders to interview those
who posted their profile to determine where they really stand. Those who
continue in open defiance should be sanctioned by their local church
Mrs. Kelly went into this endeavor with both eyes wide open. She has an agenda
and wasn't going to stop short of moving it forward, regardless of the
outcome. Her church membership should rightfully be removed. A woman of her
education and knowledge of church doctrine knows exactly what she is doing - and
that is acting in open opposition to the church.
Susan VA."There are many things that need to change in the
church to bring it into the 21st century."What part of
"Being in the world but not of the world", don't you understand? If
the church conformed to everything, it wouldn't even be called the Church
of Jesus Christ out of offending some atheist. Sunday meetings would consist of
eating, drinking and being merry. Should the Church get rid of the
word of wisdom? Should the Church get rid of the Law of Chastity? Aren't
these things out of touch with your 21st century?
@sid 6.7 1:32 p.m. June 13, 2014I don't know. I DO know that
when I was advocating for the passage of the ERA, I made very sure I was
speaking as an individual, that I did not in any way criticize the LDS
Church's stance on the issue, and did not at any time mention the fact that
I was (and still am) a member of the LDS Church.
I'm just curious, was their anyone Excommunicated for advocating African
Americans having the Priesthood prior to them receiving it?I really
don't know. Any help would be appreciated.
I'm not going to mention any names, but I'm still trying to wrap my
brain around the fact that a woman posted here that she felt that she was
disciplined by her bishop simply because she was seeking to redefine her
position in the church because her age, health... was changing. Unless that was
code for the fact that she too wanted to be ordained to the Priesthood; I think
there may have been a lot of details that were left out of that story. I just
can't imagine any bishop I've ever known disciplining me for thinking
about my position (aka my calling/what I had to offer the ward). I hope it
ended well for her and things got cleared up.
Red Wing - Well said every comment. My compliments.
Last summer, Mormon missionaries visited our home. Since they kept being
transferred, my husband and I became acquainted with 7 of the most respectful
and well mannered young men we have ever met. I attended services and enjoyed
the warmth of everyone there. The stake in Newport, RI are welcoming and make
you feel at home. I'm sorry that for several reasons I have not been able
to go back.The LDS Church does not have "a lot of maturing to do
before it's a religion for adults" An adult has a choice to stay with
the religion they were born to or to leave. If you don't agree anymore than
pick a philosophy that you agree with.Women were not meant to be
Priests! I'm a Roman Catholic and if this Pope changes anything then as an
adult I will choose to go elsewhere. Women who are "ordained" are
excommunicated automatically at our religion. I wish our Bishops were stronger
in taking disciplinary action against so called "Catholics" who do not
support our views but speak out publicly against them. They too feel that we
need to get with the times.
@Strider303You do realize that there are liberal Mormons who have good
standing in the Church - don't you? As far as I can see, Jesus was the
original Liberal. I resent that you are in effect trashing anyone who holds a
Having been disciplined by a Bishop because I said to him that I was not
questioning my faith or the church, but trying to redefine my place in the
church.... age, health and other personal things had changed over the years...
all of this just seals in my mind that women dare not question anything in the
Church. There are many things that need to change in the church to bring it into
the 21st century.... we are slowly moving in that direction. The only real
question I have in this aspect is why are these discipline hearings being held
with no female presence in the room. Because of the contention involved in
this.... I find this not only dangerous, but as a woman, terrifying.
The interesting thing about the Ordain Women movement is that they don't
"get" priesthood. A lot of PH holders also don't get it, but
that's another matter. At the core of priesthood is this: "That they
may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to ... to gratify
our pride, our vain ambition... behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the
Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood
or the authority of that man." And this: "No power or influence can or
ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by
long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;By kindness,
and pure knowledge...". The OW group doesn't want the priesthood to
serve; they want it for power. They fail to understand what the priesthood is
about. It reminds me of a line in one of my favorite books, Cry, The Beloved
Country: “But there is only one thing that has power completely, and this
is love. Because when a man loves, he seeks no power, and therefore he has
power.” Priesthood power is the same.
I seem to remember learning that the Word of Wisdom came about when a woman
asked the prophet to inquire of the Lord about a concern she had. Oh
and there was an time when persons of colour were not given priesthood authority
in the LDS Church, but eventually that changed. Maybe we
shouldn't be so harsh on these folks and remember what He taught us:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..."
MapleDon,"....I don't protest in front of the temple or
Church headquarters. I don't issue press releases voicing fierce opposition
to the Church...."______________________________In 1517,
they didn’t have the Internet for bloggers to use to spread their
messages. But Martin Luther did post his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenberg
Church. Sparking the Protestant reformation is not what he had in mind. But he
did know he was challenging an authoritarian church that had little tolerance of
@ LVIS. First of all if you grew up Mormon you know all of the worldwide
charities the church sponsors and all of the people they help within their own
wards. The LDS Church is one of the most charitable organization on this
planet. Period. As far as them building their multi-billion dollar
commercial shopping mall; I am so tired of hearing people complain about that.
As an MS patient on disability I give my 'widow's mite' and I
have no problem with them building that mall. Why? It's called
"investment". Real estate is a great way to invest money. I don't
want the Church to hide my tithing under a rock, I want to see that money grow
and be put to more good, charitable use. What's wrong with that.
It's smart investing, not evil.
There are things about the Church, its history (and its white-washing of
history), its leaders, etc. that I'm not a fan of and sometimes talk to
others about. I still hold leadership positions and have a temple recommend.But, I don't protest in front of the temple or Church headquarters.
I don't issue press releases voicing fierce opposition to the Church.
Personally, if it became bad for me, I'd happily find another church to
join. I can still follow Christ. There's the difference.
I do not know anything about Brother Dehlin. But I have followed the Sister
Kelly Ordain Women stuff knowing that the date was drawing near that we would
hear something from her in regards to a bishop's court. Am I surprised?
No. Sister Kelly asking questions was not the issue. The issue is that she has
gone beyond that. Facebook page, protests, interviews with national media. It is
so sad when someone leaves the church. My heart goes out to both families.
Leaving the church is sad. Hopefully their families will survive this stress and
they will return to the fold. The doctrine requires faith and obedience. We get
to chose our actions not the consequences.
Sonya Johnson revisited.
The church has people called as official spokeswomen and spokesmen and an
official website that posts official statements and responses. Do you think
that these officials are acting on their own without approval from Pres. Monson?
He doesn't have to come out before the media to address every issue
himself. He has better things to do, but I am absolutely sure that the
statements made in behalf of the church have been approved by him before going
out. Pres. Monson would want us to have love and compassion for
these people, but he also urged us to not be afraid to stand up for what's
right. In April's Conference he said,"My beloved brethren, with the
courage of our convictions, may we declare, with the Apostle Paul, “I am
not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.” And then, with that same courage,
may we follow Paul’s counsel: “Be thou an example of the believers,
in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity".I love Pres. Monson and I have absolute faith in his ability to lead
this church according to the will of the Lord.
@mostlygizzards said: "This is not what Christ would have done."Exactly what would Christ have done, in your opinion? Would he have just
rolled over and played the milquetoast while others, who professed to believe in
his teachings, loudly and publically spoke out against the things he taught?Please, enlighten us as to what Christ would have done.Thanks!
The *doctrine* of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not up for
democratic vote nor established via a popularity contest. It is established
through revelation to the Prophet. One can see the result of
establishing church doctrine through fiat by observing all the various
"Christian" churches...all 65,000+ denominations/factions/groups, each
with their own view of how a chapter, verse or word should be interpreted.We are exhorted to be humble, diligent and prayerful in studying
scripture and discerning its truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps if
those facing Church discipline applied those principles to their search for
truth, rather than allowing popular opinion to sway their decisions, they might
see just how orderly, just and correct the Church truly is.I pray
that we all might work harder to be humble and let the Holy Spirit guide us in
all our decisions rather than the desires of men.
If you look at Kate Kelly's facebook page, it appears she is looking for
followers for herself. She appears very narcissistic.
Was JS in favor of priesthood for women and did he give it to Emma, some
historians say it is so. Too bad the church won't open all the church
records and history and stop controlling information so that the full truth
could be shared with all god's children.
@ HRM You're right we should mourn for them and try to bring them back to
the fold. I think my responses (and perhaps others) have been not very mournful
because I feel that Ms. Kelly and Mr. Dehlin have attacked the most precious
thing in my life and continued to do so even after being asked not to. They
have cast a bad (and inaccurate) light on our Church and our through that also
our Lord and Savior, willfully, even bringing in the media personally. Perhaps
we are responding with too little charity (honestly I'm not sure most of us
are.) But I feel I have the right and the obligation to defend the Gospel and
He who is at the head, Christ Jesus, and the organization that He Himself
created, which these people are trying to destroy and publicly ridicule.
Peggy Fletcher Stack wrote in the SL Trib todayt "Kelly will continue to
work with the group as it seeks a divine answer on female ordination, she
(Kelley) said."Here's the problem: Ordain Women isn't
seeking a "divine answer" - they're insisting that the leaders of
the Church give them the answer they demand or they'll continue to march to
Temple Square with the media in tow. They have not and defiantly
won't take "No" for an answer.
@Surfs UpWhile I understand your feelings, you should know that Kate
held a calling before she moved and JoAnna holds a calling. They use the time
others spend reading comments to magnify their callings.Have you
done any good in the world today?
@Shooter_McGavin"I plead with you to have the courage to make
certain everyone included and feel LOVED and VALUED". - Thomas
S. MonsonPractice what you preach...______________________________________If you know anything about
Pres. Monson, you'd know how "practiced" he is at loving and
valuing, not just "everyone" but the individuals who make up all of us.
He's a great example of how you and I can be more like our Exemplar. And for those wondering why he isn't speaking out, he's too
busy visiting the sick and caring for the widows in addition to holding down his
How can people seriously state that all JD and KK did was ask questions? If
that's what you think, you're not going to the source materials to see
what JD has been doing and you're not watching the news with respect to
KK!It's not the questioning that is at issue - please!
It's the marches on Temple Square. It's orchestrating the plan and
leading the 150 women to step forward one at a time and ask for something that
they knew they would not be given because their request for tickets had already
been responded to. It's the podcasts with the honored guest anti-Mormon of
the week, who all have a clear negative bias, and the lambasting of apologists
as biased! Questioning doctrine, having a faith crisis, not
supporting Prop 8, etc. having never been grounds for excommunication - or
I'd be out, too. Got to run - I've got a neighbor who
@Vegas:When you say "I am discouraged and deeply saddened that
the Church doesn't want people like me in the fold," nothing could be
further from the truth. I want you in the fold with all of your
questions. I believe you can find answers through serious study and thoughtful
prayer. What the Church doesn't want is for you to encourage others to
leave the fold.I know so many people who know more than I do - most
do. Most are in the Church; some have left; many have never been associated
with us. The smartest person I've ever known had the "Faith of a
Scientist" - in fact, he wrote the book! But his faith didn't suffice
for mine. I had to find my own. I have faith that all of my
questions can be answered because that's what happens to me when I
seriously study, pray in faith, and listen to the One who knows better than any
of us. It's always puzzled me, however, that my formula
doesn't work for everyone. "Why not?" is one of my most revisited
questions. Jewish proverb: There is no solution; seek it lovingly!Respectfully,
"For a church not to allow it's members to question is a blow to all
thinking members...How can I support a church that may throw me out if I
question or doubt the verity of policy and doctrine?"The Church
doesn't prohibit us from asking questions or doubting. I'm in the
Church with all my heart and my doubts and questions. I know what I know and
what I don't. What I know keeps me actively in; what I don't keeps me
full of questions and occasional doubts. I have things I'd like to see
changed, too, and I've discussed them with others including general
authorities as appropriate.KK orchestrated publicity events, playing
to the cameras, to pressure Church leaders. She doesn't have questions or
issues about how men and women best serve in the Church together; she's
already concluded that we can't be equal without women receiving the
priesthood. Based on my experience with women, I respectfully disagree.
She's not seeking answers; she's agitating for change.
The most glaring question is this: Why does Kate Kelly want to remain a member
of a church that she does not believe in? Usually if people do not like a
church or any other organization, the leave it. I suggest she start her own
church---she can do anything she wants then. The fact that she ran to the New
York Times is very revealing. This news would not even be public because the
church keeps church courts completely confidential. Kelly has clearly revealed
her agenda----she seeks the limelight at all costs and has repeatedly attempted
to show a very distorted view of the church to the world. She is completely
It is a lot of work to be in the church.. I always wondered when Kate, John,
JoAnna Brooks etc... found time to do their callings and also head up mormon
stories and ordain woman.. Oh wait...they don't hold callings.. they are
not into building up they are into tearing down.. Let them go!!!
Mc"Nobody ever said that blacks would never hold the
priesthood" ... Nice try... But false. Bruce R. McConkie said they would
never get it. Wouldn't he be considered a 'somebody' in the
Right, we should follow the Savior. I believe He was born in Bethlehem, a couple
of thousand years or so ago. He, not anyone since, was perfect, and as such, we
could follow. But since His death and resurrection, all He's had to work
with are imperfect, flawed, mistake-making human beings. The ones who were
chosen as leaders did fairly well...still do. All have acknowledged their human
frailty. But we have to also acknowledge it with them, as well as the rarely
acknowledged fact of continuing revelation, personal inspiration, and the idea
that, given the humanity of our leaders, we need to study, learn, question, and
think. Can we at least try to separate doctrine from culture and practice? And
can we also recall that our leaders are of their times, as we are, even
prisoners of their times to some degree as we all are in ways? All these human
factors are part of us. They are part of our leaders. Sadly, they are part of
why our responses here are sometimes not representative of our best selves.
If there are any sisters out there who think we men have secrets we discuss
during priesthood session, let me clue you in. The entire priesthood session
audio file can be downloaded by anyone from the Internet. I think we should
have a women's session where men are excluded. Having the Priesthood just
means your the dumb ox pulling the ox cart that everyone else get's to ride
in. My wife still very much holds the reins.
so silly. this is America. Start your own religion and ordain dogs if you
want. What is the big fuss? Silly women.
"Ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be
opened unto you", is what I was taught. This is what our brother and sister
did here. John and Kate asked questions, sought answers and knocked on the door
for knowledge. At the same time, they helped many of us, questioners as well,
many of us feeling marginalized and unwanted, to find our testimonies and bring
them out from under the basket to shine. And because they are asking to have
their concerns heard, they are no longer our brother and sister? This is not
what I was taught. Family is always family. We and they are brothers and
sisters. One more thought--"this above all, to thine own self be true, for
it follows, as does night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man".
Thank you, Kate Kelly, for inspiring me. As an ex-mormon, who distanced myself
from the church because of the oppression I experienced as a woman, I truly
admire your courage in the struggle for equality. It is easy to ignore
oppression when you fit into the dominant group, but, the LDS church needs to
open its eyes to the trauma and damage it causes to those who don't fit.
Those who refuse to live inauthentically. There is no love without truth and
your truth is something no one can take away from you!
"Christ did not command us to "think"; He commanded us to
"Follow"...False doctrine. Christ is the same
God who said "Come, let us reason together." Yes, he indeed *did*
command us to think.
@Tyler DAll very good points. The Gospel of Thomas being sayings
attributed to Christ, I personally find them inspiring and encourage others to
read it. I couldn't agree with you more that it may only mean
that the church fathers point of view was offended when they deemed the books
in the Nag Hammadi library heretical, and may not mean the books in the Nag
Hammadi are not the Word of God. I guess I am only really saying one must have
the testimony of the Holy Ghost to help you differentiate between the books that
contain truth and those that are false.In my original post, I was
going to point out that the Apocalypse of Peter, Paul, James, etc. as well as
the remaining 47 or so other books making up the Nag Hammadi library were
forgeries... in that they weren't written by Peter, Paul or James, etc.
Then I deleted my entire paragraph realizing that this same thing could be said
about the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, etc. Back to my thought; one
needs the guidance of the HG to help you determine what is true and what is
Church members are free to ask all the questions they want. It's when the
that the answers conclude they've gotten are are different from the answers
they are supposed to get that the trouble starts.The difference
between heresy and orthodoxy is about three decades at most these days. In any
organization, it never pays to be too right too soon.
Having been a member all my life, I have had issues from time to time with
policies of the church, but neveer have I had reason to disagree with a
doctrinal principel. I was baptozed as a child, but later in life was still able
to decide for myself. Earlier comments validate my attitude that if we
disagree, we either try to reconcile or seek spirituality elsewhere. If we
truly believe that the LDS Church is what it purports to be, then our issues are
not with the leaders, but rather with the Savior himself, and it is ti Him that
we should submit our questions. If we are serious and not self-serving, we will
get an answer that, if we cannot live with it, at least will help us to exercise
our agency to exit, if that is the only alternative, we believe, to acceptance.
I marvel at the number of church members who think they should be able to have
it both ways.
It is better that one person should perish(excommunicated) than a nation
should(church) dwindle in unbelief.If she is leading others astray she
should be held accountable. It comes down to being obedient. The Lord will
never allow his Prophet to lead the church astray. As for me and my house, we
will serve the Lord and be obedient.
"I've never said anything against the leaders of the church. I've
never said anything negative about any of the Lord's anointed. I've
never taught any doctrines, let alone false doctrines."It is
amazing that Ms. Kelly can say this, as her actions are leading the hearts of
people away from the gospel all around her. I think she would be
embarrassed if she saw things as they really are. This whole thing is a total
waste of her talents.
EliyahuNobody ever insisted that blacks would never receive the
priesthood. In fact, we were always told they would receive the priesthood in
due time. We all knew it would happen and we rejoiced when the day came. It
was never eternal doctrine that they couldn't have the priesthood.
Deceased blacks were given all the temple ordinances, including the priesthood,
before the ban was lifted. That tells any thinking member that the ban was
simply a practice for this life that was never an eternal principle or
doctrine.Women holding the priesthood is another matter. I
don't think that God will change the very nature of His plan by giving
women the priesthood, but if He does, it will come from the prophet, not from
people who lack the faith to follow the prophet.
@LivinLarge"My advice, keep an open mind, be respectful and be
favorably responsive to the counsel you are about to receive from your
priesthood leaders"Kelly's ward waited until she moved
thousands of miles away to convene this hearing; her Bishop refusing to transfer
her records to the new ward. She said today that her parents had their temple
recommends taken away. I find it difficult to expect any sort of fair hearing.
Ranch:I have not found anything in scripture that says worthy black
males should not hold the Priesthood. There were a lot of things said by past
leaders. I have not seen where they actually inquired of the Lord until Pres.
Kimball did so. My dad raised me to believe that all are equal regardless of
race. I remember he was joyful when the ban was lifted.We believe
differently from each other. I respect your right to your beliefs. You have
had a very different experience with the Church than I have. I have been
spiritually strengthened along my path back over the past 8 years. I don't
present to have a reason for it (let alone to presume that any experience you
have had was from Satan).In the end, we will all find out what the
whole truth is. Until then, I have peace with the life I am living. I hope you
have the same peace in yours....
God may work in mysterious ways, but She sure nailed the timing on making
polygamy illegal, and giving the priesthood to the blacks. She'll no doubt
do it again with the 'women in the priesthood' and LGBT issues. All
that's needed is a bit more time and more public outrage at the sexism and
provincialism of the current doctrines, and a new revelation will occur - just
in time to prevent serious damage to the tithing cash flow.Speaking
as a recovering Mormon, I really don't understand why folks even bother
with activism and attempts to change the church from within. It's tilting
at windmills. The world needs thoughtful and intelligent activists to put their
energies and passions where it can do some real good. Fighting this battle
ain't it. Get out, and work for something that matters!
Sweet Ginger - so how do you suggest the church placates over 15 million
members, all whom are different individuals with different needs, beliefs and
personalities?If you believe this is the Church of Jesus Christ then
the answer is simple. Otherwise you get frustrated with the church and its
leaders believing that they refuse to appease your wishes.
Many people are getting caught up on the "asking questions" issue, as if
you can't question anything in the Church. That is a nutty - members ask
easy and hard questions all of the time and never reprimanded for it. But this
is a much bigger issue than simply "asking questions".The
Ordain Women movement asked to attend General Priesthood Meeting in October 2013
and were told no. They asked a second time in April 2014 and were told no again
- after being told to not "trespass" on Church grounds - which they
ignored.President Oaks gave a masterful talk in General Conference
on the topic of women and the priesthood, and they still refused to listen.
They now appear as steadfast as ever to get the Church to change its position on
women and the priesthood. So it is clear that this is not simply a matter of a
question, but in reality it is all about getting the answer they want.I truly do hope that they get their act together before they do irreparable
harm to their families and loved ones as well as to those that buy into their
Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, sedition is a legitimate reason for convening a
disciplinary council. My advice, keep an open mind, be respectful and be
favorably responsive to the counsel you are about to receive from your
priesthood leaders. The Church is not a democracy, it is a theocracy and Church
leaders, both local and general are empowered to act according to the authority
they possess. If you both want to retain your full-fellowship Church status,
give heed to their counsel.
Having followed the activities of Kate Kelley and John Dehlin for a couple of
years, I have to agree that it is time for the Church to take action against
these people who have promoted dissension, encouraged apostasy, and who are out
of harmony with the teachings of the Church.
Good grief! To all those who keep saying they are being punished for asking
questions, please re-read the article.No one is being punished for
asking questions, whether they be hard or easy. My word, the whole reason we
have the restoration of the Gospel is because Joseph Smith asked questions.
Yes, most of those being very hard questions.Secondly, they are not
being punished. (Not yet anyway.) They are being called into a council to
answer questions on whether or not they, by their actions, are advocating for
and/or leading others in the church astray.1. You can question all
you want!2. You cannot go around teaching others in the church that
your view is correct and the leaders of the church are wrong. If
you are doing the first you are fine. If you are doing the second, you will be
given an opportunity to explain, and if determined you are leading others
astray, an opportunity to repent. Should you not repent, then you will be asked
to leave.It isn't rocket science. After reading the above,
those who are still advocating that these two are receiving punishment for the
first, are intentionally being deceitful.
Growing up LDS, I was always told that we must gain our own testimony of each
principle of mormon doctrine. However, if your own testimony of a subject
differs from that of the mormon church then they blame you and claim your wrong.
It's a strange practice. Either you swallow the whole of mormon doctrine,
leave the mormon church, or choose to ignore the parts that bother you. But
there is no space in mormonism for "picking your truths". I've
left the mormon church (very happily) but feel sad for those that have
conflicted feelings over parts of the mormon church.
The problem with authenticity is that you can authenticate your way to Hades.
In Articles of Faith 11, Joseph Smith stated: "We claim the privilege of
worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and
allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they
may." If a person has serious complaints about lds doctrine, they should see
this statement as an invitation. It is a person's privilege to worship as
they wish, but not their prerogative to change church doctrine. If Mormonism
doesn't satisfy a person's conscience, let that person worship how,
where, or what they may in a church that meets their criteria. It will, however,
be a challenge. Where will they find a church that supports the Book of Mormon
and allows women to hold the priesthood? They can say they want to belong to the
LDS church, but right now actions are speaking louder than words.
I'm appalled at the number of "good riddance" comments here. People
seem to think that all that is needed is to get rid of two people and no one
will ever question the status quo again. Do they really want a church where
people remain silent out of fear? Being Jewish,, I come from a
culture where it's not only acceptable, but expected, to question our
leaders and argue with them if we think them wrong. For that matter, our
ancestor Abraham argued with God and won the argument over how many righteous
people were needed to save the cities of the plains. Accepting dissent and
vigorous debate is one of the things that helped us survive for so many
thousands of years. For a people who claim to believe in ongoing
revelation and prophecy, though, it's surprising that the LDS folks are as
adamant in insisting that the male-only priesthood will never change as they
were in insisting that polygamy will remain forever and that Blacks will never
receive the priesthood.
O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the
foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they
hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know
of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.
And they shall perish.
And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had
seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the
tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also
beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of
the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the
angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of
all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve
apostles of the Lamb.
@RedWings;Growing up, the ban on blacks in the priesthood certainly
was taught as "doctrinal". You should go read the talks by James E.
Talmage among others.If we all followed Jesus and did unto others,
the world would certainly be a better place. Instead, we have a church
disciplining others for asking hard questions. I've had my
share of personal experiences and they've given me the opposite answers to
the ones you've gotten. Were mine all from Satan then?Even
Brigham Young told the members to "ask and question anything he said".
ETB started the "follow or else..." movement.
@homeoccsg"John Dehlin and his Mormon Stories was a huge help to
me during a particularly painful time when I could not get answers from my
Bishop or Church Headquarters about church history. I could have been
excommunitcated for asking questions about church "doctrine" and
history."How do you know if you didn't ask? That is a
fear/lie that keeps you from finding the truth about your questions, and the
truth about how questions are treated.A) It is a myth that asking
questions will get you excommunicated. Everyone has questions, and the person
you ask may have already asked -- and found the answer to -- your questions.B) I've heard many of John's questions that he says the church hides
from, and I'd heard all the questions -- and answers -- decades earlier,
from very open, very orthodox, very public sources like BYU, Deseret Book, The
Era, Ensign, etc. Just because you've never heard a question/answer
doesn't mean it isn't readily available, likely from someone in your
ward, stake, etc.I
RE Patriot:I find this statement,"Washington DC
model of doing things...use lawyers and the press to get what you want. That
doesn't work with the Church. Sorry Kate...the Church is not a political
organization caving in to political correctness." incredibly
ironic since "using the press" and "lawyers" worked incredibly
well for the Church during California's Prop 8 vote a few years back. Let's not fool ourselves Mr. Patriot as we all know the Church is
far from not being a political organization.
Ranch:I think for myself. I look for spiritual confirmation of
things I do not understand. I have read the anti-Mormon stuff and it is all
smoke and mirrors. If you can provide a scripture where Christ said
"think for yourself and then either follow me or don't", please do
so.riverofsun:If we all followed God instead of our own
selfish will, the world would me more peaceful, loving, and tolerant.
The solution is simple. If you have lost confidence in your religion's
leader, found a new religion. That's what the Protestants did by starting
their own churches and then they were able to call the shots. The are thousands
of denominations so why not add one more.
you can tell, these are the last days. ezra taff benson said there will be
wolves in white sheep clothing in our mist. he also said before the lord show
him self to the rest of the world, he will clean his house first and cleanse it.
wheat and the tares. the faithful will stand.
"I plead with you to have the courage to make certain everyone included and
feel LOVED and VALUED". - Thomas S. MonsonPractice
what you preach...
It is curious to me that both of these disciplinary councils are happening near
the same time. It makes me wonder if the real push for this isn't from
someone higher up in the Church hierarchy.
UT Brit:I never said I did not question. I did question many
things. I would bet I have seen all that you have, maybe more. But I refused
to rely solely on my own opinion and intelligence. I prayed for understanding,
and I received it. We are promised this in James 1:5.The priesthood
essay is not an issue for me. I have heard for a long time that the prohibition
on blacks holding the priesthood was never doctrinal. For the Church to put out
an honest and unflinchng assessment of its own past does not negate everything
else for me. Church leaders in the 19th century said the same things that were
said in the US Congress at that time. Does that negate all that was done in
Congress as well?I have never done "mental gymnastics". I
wanted the truth, not my opinion of it. I am sorry that you cannot get around
these things. I hope you will find peace....
I think the poster on this thread, who see wisdom in the casting out of two of
their own, should be complimented for the love and concern they show for one who
sees things differently. One could almost feel the compassion for a fellow
member seeping through the computer screen while reading their words of kindness
If we all followed Christ, the world would be in terrific shape.
Flashback says:"Wraith, what do you say to those like me who do
know that the church is true and are perfectly happy living by it's
precepts? "Can I take a crack at this? I'd say you're
lying to yourself. You BELIEVE. You do not "know", otherwise what need
have you of faith? BTW: I've had just as many "spiritual
witnesses" of the falsehood as you have had of the truth of your church.@Balan;It's not "the church of Thomas Monson and
the apostles" either. It should be the church of the people.@Steve C. Warren;Goodness, I agree with you for a change.@Vegas;Thinking for oneself is not a church approved virtue. For
example RedWings' comment: "Christ did not command us to
"think"; He commanded us to "Follow"..."@LDS
Members;Weren't the "scriptures" in the D&C the
result of church members going to JS and asking questions?
One should "not think, but follow"?Did God really say this?Any idea the kind of shape the world would be in if this was considered
normal, rational behavior?
Red Wings and Fred VaderI haven't read all of the 174 (at the
time of my post) comments here. However, I do want to commend you on the most
simple and profound point I've seen in all these discussions that happen
regarding the LDS Church, both pro and con. To repeat, the commandment from
Jesus is not to think, but to FOLLOW. That pretty much say is all. And to
those who question that principle, look no further than a few posts down at what
Fred Vader pointed out about how Jesus deals with people. The Lord can be
pretty blunt, when necessary. Thanks to the both of you for reminding us all
what it means to "Come Follow Me".
I've gone from saddened to downright frightened when reading the comments
of the stalwart members of the "church". Here is what I've learned
during my time on earth: Not one of your church leaders will judge you or save
you or is responsible for you. It's up to each one of us to develop a
relationship with God. I know beyond a "shadow of doubt" that the people
running the church are wrong on certain issues but doing an unbelievably good
job on most. I think it's up to me to help set things right. How much
radicalism is enough? It took the threat of having BYU banned from participation
in sports to finally get the church off the dime re priesthood for all. Please
stop judging people that ask for change.
"This is not what Christ would have done." (You're right, he
would've acted swifter like in the Temple with the money changers)These are prime examples of becoming fixated on one or two things and let it
destroy you. The counsel from Pres Uchtdorf to "Doubt your doubts before you
doubt your faith" rings true. Extremism is dangerous in all its
forms.The common theme here is that these people usually seek
attention and power, as if every worthy cause calls for the press to cover it
and the controversy to be out. A cry for help maybe? A listening ear is
what they need. Can someone just give them a hug?
Are we sure that only men can have the priesthood is doctrine? What if its just
a practice of the church as a whole based upon the thinking of times? When the
priesthood was revealed, it was during a time when men were the cultural leaders
of all sects. Maybe this is just like denial of the priesthood to
African Americans. Does anyone else think that this doctrine/policy will change
and the explanation will be that "it never was doctrine, but the practice of
few, and we don't know why it was like that."
The sifting has begun.
Here's hoping that these two make the changes necessary to retain a church
membership that they claim is important to them. It takes a lot of humility for
a person to recognize when he/she is in the wrong. They wouldn't be the
first who failed to do so. Then again, they wouldn't be the first who
succeeded in doing so either.Hopefully my perceptions wrong, but
their decisions to A) make these private matters a public issue and B) pretend
that the only thing they ever did was ask questions seem to indicate that they
are having a difficult time recognizing the underlying problem. Leading
protests and asking questions are very different approaches.
For all those believers wondering what Jesus would do in this situation, and
believing that He would never cast people out for disobedience or arguing their
own will, please keep in mind the following:1/3 of the host of
heaven was cast out for following Lucifer, who thought he had the better plan at
salvation....wouldn't he argue that he wanted to stay in heaven, he just
didn't like how the plan of salvation was presented?Also
consider the actual words of the Savior from Matthew 7:21-23...21.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful
works? 23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you;
depart from me, ye that work iniquity.Sounds like all of us have the
opportunity to stay, or, be cast out if we choose our own will over that of our
Father in Heaven (yes, including me).
@Esquire,This isn't a local decision. Rock Waterman (another
prominent blogger) was given a similar letter on the same day by a member of the
seventy. I highly doubt this type of coordination is happenstance or occurred
without the knowledge of the 12.
Sometimes new Bishops and Stake Presidents like to flex their newfound muscles.
Let's hope they read Section 121 and practice "righteous
Commenters are saying to follow the prophet. Question: Where is the
Prophet's voice on this? It kind of seems the bureaucracy and/or local
leadership is driving this action, not the Prophet.
I don't see a reason to hurt people by removing them from a Church they
wish to remain in. Many revelations from the top are responsive the voices from
RedWingsSome of us have been doing mental gymnastics for years
trying to justify some of things in the church. I hear Elder Oakes saying not to
criticise a leader of the church even if they are wrong and being told to doubt
my doubts. Well I have been trying to doubt my doubts for a couple of decades
now but things just keep stacking up. I think the priesthood essay was the straw
that broke the camels back.Yes if you follow and never question anything
that's not a good thing. Many people in history have committed atrocities
using that same mindset.Its very difficult when you have prophets of
the only true and living church, the ones who are supposed to have a direct line
to God, teach false doctrine (something that is supposed to be impossible) for
over a century and then say "well that was just their opinion" after.
What are you supposed to do when you can never be sure if the prophets are
teaching correct principles?
This makes me sad, and it is not caused by Kate Kelly or John Dehlin. First,
Kelly's bishop calls a disciplinary council just two weeks after her stake
president assures her she is just on "informal probation" and that she
has time to sort things out. Her every word promotes the church, doesn't
tear it down. Discussing and disagreeing as the doctrine evolves used to be a
cherished tradition in the church. Recent leaders seem much less willing to
discuss and examine varying views. Strange in view of the recent official
statements that church practices concerning blacks and the priesthood were
changed by prejudices and societal pressures. And Dehlin has doubts
and discusses them, but WANTS to be in the church.Another thing
saddening me is the judging and condemning of Kelly and Dehlin among the
faithful. Not at all like Christ. Christ didn't even reject Judas,
didn't condemn or excommunicate him. Why are so many people so happy to see
"these people" "get what they deserve"? If they want to ask the
church to give women the priesthood, why should that bother you so much,
especially when it is seeking something GOOD.
If you don't believe LDS, don't do LDS.
To all who are posting as a "thinking members of the Church":I left the Church after high school. I lived a lot of my life in opposition
to the LDS Church and its teachings. 8 years ago I returned.I have
seen a lot of anti-Mormon propoganda and I have an even stronger testimony as a
result. I have not shied away or kept myself sheltered. When I learn of
something I question, I research it and also pray. How many of you
"thinking members" have sought guidance from your Father in Heaven in
these matters?It is great that you are "thinking members",
apparently as opposed to us who are "sheep" since we do follow our
Prophet.Let me ask: Are you thinking objectively, or looking for a
pre-conceived answer? You will find both in any history, especially in LDS
history.Christ did not command us to "think"; He commanded
us to "Follow"...
Although it is quite saddening, many members of the Lord's Church are
throwing themselves out of the Lord's Church just as He said they would.
Church disciplinary proceedings are just as sacredly conducted as are interviews
of a more positive circumstance. However, when you seek the opinions and
commentary from the world, you have negated the sacredness of the action.
Please, subject yourself to the will of the Lord in humble prayer and trust His
Holy Prophet to seek guidance through the Holy Ghost not The New York Times.
The most troubling aspect about this is it makes people like me question whether
I have a place in the church. My beliefs are similar to John Dehlin's, and
although I don't have a large forum to express those beliefs, I do share my
thoughts and feelings with friends and family. Based on the Church's
actions this week, I am discouraged and deeply saddened that the Church
doesn't want people like me in the fold.
It is never too late to stop heading toward the cliff and change direction.think about it.
It is surprising that Kate feels willing to fight for membership in an
organization that she doe not truly understand or support. The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on revelation, a church directed by divine
guidance. If I find I don't totally agree with something in God's
church I just remind myself, "I must not be seeing the whole picture because
I know where it comes from so it is me who has to seek to understand." I
would be silly to try to change what God has decreed as His will and His
doctrine. To do so seems to indicate a lack of testimony in the divinity of the
Church. There are churches whose doctrine is decided by debate and discussion
but the LDS Church is not one of them.
Bow to the King or have your head cut off , the more things change the more the
stay the same
@McSorry there are some legitimate problems with some of the
churches doctrines and early history, none of which has been properly explained
or in some instances not told to the general membership. Our lesson manuals
paint a very rosy picture of our history, people with critical thinking skills
struggle greatly with some of these questions. John Dehlin tried to help people
stay in the church, when you kick him out what is the logical course of
events?"if they want to stay in the church"Sorry, some of the questions I have had have not been explained by Bishops,
stake presidents and general authorities. Give me the answers and I wont try to
seek them in other forums. Kicking people out trying to stay in the church is
not a good thing.The church opened up a huge can of worms by saying
the prophets can and have in the past taught false doctrine. Anything is now
open to questioning.
I personally don't feel sorry for them facing Church Discipline, I am not a
member of the LDS Church. But the Church has right to deal with people who
make protests the Church Doesn't believe in or agree with, they have been
warned Im sure many time and they still keep speaking out. You have been
warned, now deal with the consequences, if their Church membership means
anything to them at all they wouldn't be protesting these issues. Go with
the Faith, every Church Including the LDS faith has its flaws in its Leaders and
Members when to comes to church discipline. Not every outcome is the same or
even relevant to the same situation because of the different leaders in the
Church. You have the Leaders in salt lake telling you to stop and you
don't, all I see is someone who wants the Publicity more than their
Anyone who has gone through a temple recommend interview should not be surprised
by this. Those people commenting that these people are being
reprimanded for just "asking questions" are ridiculous. Are all 150
women who tried to get in to Priesthood session being disciplined? No, the head
of the organization is. Try this experiment. Go "ask" your bishop
if you can have you 6 year old baptized. He'll say no, but I can promise
that you will not be called in for disciplinary action. People "ask"
difficult questions all the time in sunday school every week. No one gets a slap
on the wrist for it. The difference with the ordain women group is that they are
actively trying to lead people astray. She is pretty much a tame version of
Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor.
Just FYI, nobody is trying to make them go away. The Church has to distance
itself from certain people to show the membership and the world what it
tolerates and what it doesn't.
I am an 87 year old member of the LDS Church. My ancestors joined the church in
Nauvoo, they were driven out of their homes by people who just would not give
them the right to live their religion as they wanted. My advise to those that
want to change the doctrine of the church, had better get down on their knees
and get some help. Also to admit to themselves that they are NOT following the
doctrine of the Church, and that if they loose their membership because of their
actions, they will loose the most valuable thing they have, even if they have
all the money and worldly things they need. I can testify that Thomas S Monson
is truly a living prophet, and we need to follow him.
As these comments continue, little nuances make for better understanding.Royal court on high?Only true Church?Nobler?Back to the old
"we are #!, and better than the rest of you". That D&C has
caused much confusion.My own children now tell me that there is nothing
discussed about Plural Marriage in the D&C. BTW, we have the older versions
in our home.Is much of the past in the LDS Church kept from new members
and the younger generation? Why? No wonder the distrust and anger towards
Mr. Dehlin, and the ladies who wonder why they are not good enough to take on
more in the LDS Church.Satan is driving them? Come on!
Do I have questions, even doubts about Church policy and practices? Yes. Most
members won't live their life and not encounter questions and doubts.Do I discuss these questions/doubts among trusted close personal friends
who are sincere believers in the Church? Yes.Am I treated with
compassion and love and acceptance when I do talk about these things with close
personal friends and advisors? Yes.Do I create public forums for
debate or organize rallies and protests, risking damage to other's
people's faith and disrupting Church meetings? No way.Please
tell me you see the difference.
"Activist" is just the bleeding-heart knee-jerk liberals' word for
@patriot: In case you didn't realize this the LDS church is very much a
political organization and has inserted itself into many political issues and
continues to do so.It makes me very sad to read the thoughts of so
many people that feel its proper to get rid of anyone that may ask the wrong
kind of questions. The LDS church by it's own admission has been completely
wrong on points of doctrine (see essay on blacks and the priesthood @lds.org).
Maybe it's time to try and love people back instead of force people back.
After all, if you have the truth what is there to fear?
By turning these notices into a public relations festival one can easily
conclude where their heart lies.
Although as an active LDS person I don't favor giving women the priesthood,
I do favor a much stronger voice for women in the Church, but that's not
the point. The point is this: Because the Church prevented blacks from having
the priesthood for more than a century, claiming it was doctrinal, but then
reversed course and said it was never a doctrine and that the practice was
wrong, the Church can never again expect silence from members who oppose the
Church's position about who should be given the priesthood. It has simply
forfeited that right.
UT BritJohn Dehlin may have helped some people stay in the church, but not
as strong faithful members. I believe that he has helped far more people feel
ok about doubting their faith. He draws in questioning members who don't
understand church doctrine and he validates their doubts. He does the opposite
of what Pres. Uchtdorf counseled, "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your
faith." How do I know this? Our son was led right out of the church
through Mormon Stories podcasts. They have groups that meet all over the
country and they all revere John Dehlin more than Pres. Monson.Having questions is not a problem. It's thinking you have the answers and
need to counsel the Prophet that leads to church discipline. Even then it
usually only happens when you seek to influence others. If John Dehlin loses
his membership that will at least show those who seek answers online that if
they want to stay in the church, his website is not the place to find the
10% of Mormon women surveyed support women being ordained to the priesthood.48% of Mormon men support women being ordained to the priesthood.If it were up to me (and it is obviously not) I would say let them have the
priesthood. There is nothing inherently wrong with it and previous church
doctrine I believe has been incorrect (African-Americans and the Priesthood for
example).Catholic leaders teach that their leaders are infallible
and their people do not believe them. Mormon leaders teach their leaders are
fallible and their people do not believe them.
@32843 – “Just because something is old and dusty doesn't make
the doctrine found in it true.”An excellent point…
applied equally well to any old book (Bible included).But
you’re a bit off base on the gnostic texts. Just because the codex’s
found in Egypt were 4th century copies doesn’t mean the original texts
were – and you do know that the vast majority of Bible fragments (which
are all copies of copies of copies) are dated around the 4th century or later,
yes?Most scholars agree that the Gospel of Thomas was written as
early as 40 AD, prior to any other gospel. And it was considered a strong
candidate for inclusion until well into the 3rd century when orthodoxy became
ascendant (and was canonized at the Council of Nicea). So
who’s to say the Gnostics had it wrong, the Orthodox Church? Of course
they thought so… doesn’t mean they were right, just victorious.Gnostic texts portray a Jesus much closer to an enlightened eastern sage
than a deity with magic powers. Whether or not they were right it certainly
sounds a million times more plausible.
I quite frankly have no idea who John Dehlin is. However, when I hear comments
such as "John Dehlin has helped people stay in the church, if he goes no
doubt others will follow", it makes me wonder who these people are really
converted to - Jesus Christ or John Dehlin.Good for him for helping
people stay in the Church. But if these people become followers of John Dehlin
and not of the Savior, there is a problem. This is not the church of John
A while back, Mormons were taking pride in the ballyhooed ‘Mormon
moment’ and all the ‘I am a Mormon’ promo ads that ran on TV.
This proselytizing church puts its whole heart into placing the sunny side of
Mormonism on public display. That may now be offset to some degree as the public
gets a grim glimpse of the dark side of the religion.
We knew this was coming. It's happened before. Any religion can only
tolerate so much free speech.
No one should be surprised by the action of the Church. I don't think it
is necessary, but I am not surprised. I do feel, however, that it is a shame
that the Church can't look at the issues with a fresh set of eyes. Age old
traditions should not necessarily be called doctrine. I know of no valid reason
other than tradition why women should not have the exact same privileges as men.
Joseph Smith was a revolutionary of sorts. But the Church he founded has
become as bound by tradition as the Catholic Church.
For a church not to allow it's members to question is a blow to all
thinking members. For a church to throw out someone who ask for changes in
church doctrine is foolish. Perhaps it is time to reconsider my belief system,
or least involvement in the church. How can I support a church that may throw
me out if I question or doubt the verity of policy and doctrine?
@Craig ClarkHow naive of you. Ms. Kelly did so much more than express her
independent view, and she knows it. All she can do now is try and save face by
feigning "all I did was...". When you put up a website, go on radio
talk shows, invite women to join in the "discussion", organize your
"troops" to march on Temple Square and invite the media to record it
all, actively coming to conference and ask for entrance when you have been asked
in a formal letter by the church not to, there is no question this is so much
more than expressing an independent view. I express an independent view when I
share my thoughts with my friends, family and even comment in Sunday School and
Relief Society. She has gone way above and beyond merely expression. She has
crossed the line time and again.
This reminds me of the students who go to BYU and complain about the rules. If
you don't like the rules at BYU,simply go to another school. If you qualify
for BYU, you most likely qualify for almost any school in the nation. If you
don't like what the church teaches, and if you are really "being true
to yourself", you should simply attend another church that allows you to be
"true to yourself".The LDS Church is not forcing anyone to become and/or
remain members. What about the LDS football player who is going to Notre Dame (A
Catholic School)? You can bet that if he doesn't obey the School's
Rules, he will be asked to attend another University. If these people who are
protesting against the church's Doctrine, are truly sincere, they will ask
their Heavenly Father what is right and get their own answer. Perhaps they
already have. It is not mine to judge.
This isn't the first issue that will cause members to sift themselves out
of the LDS Church. And it isn't going to be the last. It doesn't
matter if this discipline galvanizes others. Every one of them is going to
choose individually what they want the most.
John Dehlin and his Mormon Stories was a huge help to me during a particularly
painful time when I could not get answers from my Bishop or Church Headquarters
about church history. I could have been excommunitcated for asking questions
about church "doctrine" and history. The Mormon Church is on a slippery
slope when it comes to their stance on what marriage is or is not whether that
be opposite sex or same sex because of their past with "Celestial
Marriage" or what the world perceives as "Polygamy" and its dark
history.As far as the priesthood goes, Blacks were not allowed until
1978. The church came out recently saying it was a ban on Blacks. I wonder if
the Brazil Temple being built at that time with a large number of the
congregation being from black ancestry helped with that revelation.Hopefully the Mormon Church will look long and hard at their position or those
with thinking minds will be leaving by the droves because a temple attending
Latter-Day-Saint promises all their time, talents and everything they have to
the Church. That's a lot to ask when there are so many skeletons in the
@Cinci ManDehlin wasnt the only one who has troubles with the church
building a mall. Yes it creates jobs in the US, but when it comes to building a
hospital or a school in a disadvantaged country or a mall to sell luxury goods I
am pretty sure which one Jesus would do.
Wraith, what do you say to those like me who do know that the church is true and
are perfectly happy living by it's precepts? I've had many spiritual
witnesses of the truth of the Church. Do you just say that I'm deluded?
I've had too many experiences that lead me in the direction that I have
gone. Maybe it's just just psychological effect, eh? I live
by 2 Nephi 31:19- 19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into
this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you,
Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with
unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to
save.In other words you can't be complacent. Of course in your
case, if you are looking for negative, you'll find it.
@John C Bennett,Your name betrays you. Obviously you take sacred
truths and apply them where they do not apply. If you've read Elder
Oaks' talk from General Conference you'd know better.
Why does anyone want to be a member of any entity it opposes? This is simply
for publicity and to lead others astray. there were many like this in the Book
of Mormon. They received the consequences of their actions, as are these two.
Wish them well in their endeavors, however, they must go elsewhere as they are
Redneck Lefty: You make a point perfectly although probably not the one you
intended. The question of blacks and the priesthood had been on the minds of
church leaders for several years before the proclamation. If someone was
excommunicated six months prior, the questioning or doctrinal differences were
not the problem. The attitude and behavior of the questioner must have led to
his discipline.All: I'm all about doctrine. I love studying
doctrine. I've had tons of questions about doctrine and still have some.
But doctrine was never the source of my testimony. My testimony is rooted in
spiritual experiences, not just once but continually over the past 40+ years
(I'm now 60 years old). I always felt if someone could argue me into the
church, someone else could just as easily argue me out of it. Doctrine only
supplements what I already know to be true through the power of the Spirit.Anybody who has a testimony rooted in doctrine instead of the spirit is
missing the real flowing power of the church and gospel. In the words of Truman
Madsen, they are not really IN the church regardless of their geography on
Having been on many disciplinary councils all I can do is shake my head and
remember all the things that I will take to my grave without revealing anything.
There are SO many things that others just don't know about regarding the
persons life and actions. You must remember that most of the time you hear about
things from ONE side. I will leave all this to the hands of the respective
Bishops and Stake Presidents. The power of the Spirit that they have comes from
a source that is not their own. Truth is Knowledge of things as they are, as
they were and as they are to come. All this other stuff is just speculation.
I cannot help but comment about Dehlin's misguided rant about the City
Creek Mall. His writing is wrong on so many levels. He accused church leaders
of declaring that God directed them to build a mall instead of channeling those
funds to the poor. The fact is that the mall provides thousands of jobs for
generations that affects the economy that even positively affects many more
thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. My wife and I once had to decide how best
to help a son provide for his family. We could either give them money
continually, or create a business opportunity that would provide
'fishing' rather than 'fish'. We chose the
'fishing' and now they are self sufficient and there is no more draw
on us. No tithing funds were used for City Creek. Dehlin doesn't seek to
understand. He chooses to disagree and make public his refusal to understand.
He publicly criticizes in order to embarrass and pressure church leaders to do
something different than their years of wisdom leads them. He provides a public
forum for ridicule of church leaders.
Church leaders do there best to keep discipline confidential so except for maybe
a reason announcing the necessity of the church discipline the media will mostly
hear from the side of the people facing discipline. The church leaders usually
try to keep discipline as private as possible. Though it does get around
sometimes and there are people in positions that need to know about it.
I tire of people who stage manage their own martyrdom in order to smokescreen
their perpetration.Why do these people belong to a church they do
not believe? (other than to try to gain the faux power of victimhood) Stop
playing victim, grow up, make your own choice and live with it
John Dehlin has helped people stay in the church, if he goes no doubt others
Doctrine and Covenants 86:3 And after they have fallen asleep the great
persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all
nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to
reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and
drive the church into the wilderness. She is a weed, a tare, and will choke the
wheat or the truth with her constant feeding on the same ground as those seeking
nourishment (the truth around her.) "Sisters, regardless of your age;
please understand all that you are and must be, all that you were prepared to be
in the royal courts on high by God Himself. May we use with gratitude the
priceless gifts we have been given for the lifting if mankind to higher thinking
and nobler aspirations..." Margaret Nadauld Young Women’s President
October 2000 General Conference.
These two people have questions about the doctrines of the church. Where they
step over the line is when they feel they are the ones who have the stewardship
to change doctrine. Changes to doctrine come in order to those that have the
stewardship. The best example of this was when Pres. Kimball prayed and inquired
of the Lord regarding the inclusion of all worthy members to enjoy the blessings
of the temple. This was his stewardship. Having questions and jumping up to,
"I know better than those that have the stewardship," is not part and
parcel of being true to oneself. This is the seriousness of their misdirection.
This is, and always has been grounds for excommunication. Not in asking the
question, but in the presumption that you, not the prophet, are called to
receive sacred revelations. Being true to oneself includes the ability to
listen to the promptings that come and making sure their personal agenda
doesn't color or interfere with those promptings.
Dehlin says in his own writing on his website that he doesn't believe in
the fundamentals of the L.D.S. faith, the gospel of Jesus Christ, as restored
by Joseph Smith. He says he is trying to reverse the damage. Does he have any
idea of how the gospel helps to change people for the better who would be so
much more damaged without it?
These people seem to think they are smarter then God is. And when that happens,
they stop studying scripture, stop listening to church leaders, and then fall
away, because they think they know a better way to believe, then what the Lord
has taught. And if they hold callings maybe, that can negatively affect a
person's testimony, then that can be a problem, and should be dealt with.
These steps the church does, isn't meant to be done on public airwaves, for
a good reason. It is a private matter.
"To end the probation, Wheatley said Kelly would, among other things, need
to take down the Ordain Women website and disassociate herself from the
group." Maybe she could call Mark Shurtleff for some help. Another
commenter:" Some people feel that they can oppose an organization, work
against its purposes, and try to influence others to think and act against the
organization, and remain a member of the organization. Can you imagine behaving
in such a way at your employment?" YES I can ! I imagine it every time I
read the history of my country and how George Washington, a loyal member of the
King's army would dare challenge his King and build a nation. Just imagine
that!! The Church is not an Democracy and neither is Utah. Don't need to
imagine that. HB 220
Its not one size fits all with faith, beliefs and religion, I feel sorry for
anyone that feels the need to even try! I'm not sure why these people chose
a venture like this other than for attention...If they really don't accept
the doctrine, they should leave it to those who do and find something they do
We might use the analogy of the blind leading the blind, except the two members
involved appear to choose to be blind as do those being led.I have
had a simple process over the years: I hear a point of doctrine. I try to live
it and as I live it I work to understand why it is a "good seed" so I
won't cast it out over some petty personal position.Obviously,
the two situations discussed herein appear completely different on the surface
but are not. No matter the good intentions, the way those intentions are put
into action is more important than what many people understand.
On one hand I understand the reason why Kate Kelly wants to have the right to
officiate in priesthood ordinances. I don't believe women need that right
but I do think that we need more women in Church leadership. A quick study of
scriptural history would show that women can lead, even be judges in Israel, and
not be officially ordained to have priesthood.She was a little
"in your face" with her tactics. But how else do you get the
Church's attention? How else does change happen? The brethren never came
out with a definitive statement saying that they had asked God on the subject
and he said, "…..". That's what they were/are asking for.
This is so sad! At a time when members should stand united against Satan and
the evil in the world, this is what she decides to take a stand on? I hope she
wasn't surprised that she is now facing a hearing. I stand with the church
on this one! She shares the priesthood she is protesting about - every time she
has a priesthood blessing - every time she takes sacrament - every time she
attends the temple (assuming she has a temple recommend) I would be curious to
know why she thinks she needs more priesthood power? Wrong time in these Latter
Days to be fighting among ourselves.
What is a Priestess? Who performs initiatories for women and with what power?
How does a man receive the second annointing? If you think women have never
held the priesthood and never will you understand neither church history nor the
The Wraith:"In truth we have left because we simply found the
truth."What truth? That God does not exist? That there is no
mostlygizzards:"I'm sad today. This is not what Christ would have
done."Perhaps He'd drive them out with a whip... like he
did the money changers from the Temple back in the day.SLCPorter:"Making a martyr out of the leader of an organization will only galvanize
and mobilize the followers..."If you leave a cancer in the body
untreated it will eventually destroy the body.Craig Clark:"If expressing independent views is cause for disciplinary action, then
the LDS Church still has a lot of maturing to do before it’s a religion
for adults."I think the expression is: 'Suffer little
children to come unto Me for such is the kingdom of heaven.'michael.jensen369:"It is about asking inspired questions."What's an inspired question?I know what sincere
questions are but not inspired questions.Vgr:"...is that
Joseph Smith and his family did engage in treasure seeking activities."Smith never claimed to be perfect. In fact, he says he was left with
all kinds of temptations, frequently fell into many foolish errors, and
displayed the weakness of youth and foibles of human nature...
Tyler D. There are 10 pages missing from the Gospel of Mary, six of which are
the first six pages making it difficult for the book to maintain any coherent
doctrine. AS for the Nag Hammadi codices, there are 13 leather-bound volumes
dated to the mid-fourth century, which is around the same time they were deemed
heretical and banned by early church authorities. The vast majority of the
scrolls in the Nag Hammadi library represent the writings of what was/is known
as Christian Gnosticism. The early church fathers were nearly unanimous in
recognizing these Gnostic scrolls as containing false doctrines about Jesus
Christ, salvation, God, and other crucial Christian truths. There are countless
contradictions between the Nag Hammadi library and the Bible.Just
because something is old and dusty doesn't make the doctrine found in it
true. Like with anything else you read or are told its best to let the Spirit
of Christ guide you and not just accept it as being true because you read it in
an old book or because you want it to be true.
It's distasteful to hear people crowing self-righteously here. If you
really believe in the Church, you should recognize that this is sad and tragic;
if you take joy in it, you should be ashamed of yourself.Also, just
for some perspective: someone was excommunicated for the Church for pushing for
ordination of black men just six months before black men were given the
For those who are unfamiliar with the church, I hope the following analogy helps
you understand. As a child, when I begged or whined in the grocery store,
demanding a treat, my mother calmly counseled me that I could not have it, no
matter many times I asked or how loud I yelled. If I continued, she said we
would go home and I would not be allowed to come back to the store with her. My
mother left the store without groceries because of my behavior. My mom loved me
enough to give me the ability to make choices about my behavior. She also loved
me enough to discipline me when I needed it. She loved me enough to give me the
opportunity to try again. Members of the Ordain Women movement are
loved, prayed for, not excluded. However, there comes a point when we cannot be
together for our mutual benefit. We have reached that point. I pray for those
struggling to know their purpose on earth and the service they can give to
others will find the answers they are looking for. I wish them the best of luck
and I hope they find happiness and fulfillment.
higvChrist doesn't run the church. People run the church. The
sooner you understand this, the better.
dwidenhouseWhy are you sad that they lost their testimonies? It
happens. What if it isn't true, would you still be sad they lost their
testimonies? Many who separate from the cloud of Mormonism go on to live happy,
rich, fulfilling lives. I know, I am one of them.
truth in all its formsThey aren't protesting a key doctrine.
Women gave blessings by the laying on the hands and held the priesthood in the
1800's, though they may not have called it priesthood. So no, these women
aren't way off of base in their requests. Plus, doctrine isn't in
stone. The church has not only changed 'policies' but also has changed
'doctrines' many times due to popular consent. Why are they being
criticized for sharing there views on the matter? Church discipline for
disagreeing with a church doctrine? Really? What a sad time.
All I can say is that when African American men wanted the priesthood, their
leaders seemed just as radical. I want to know the difference between then and
now.These two people have kept thousands and thousands of members in
the church. They were the voice so many needed. Not because they and the
countless members doubt God, but because they have so much love for God that
they can't leave the church even when it would be so much easier to do
so.Talk to them. They're just people with questions. Why did
their answer have to be so harsh?
I’ve sometimes wondered if the Bible and many subsequent events in the
churches since then is simply a history of God trying to separate the sheep from
true human beings (i.e., people of strong moral character willing to do
what’s right in the face of extreme conformist pressure and even testing
commands from God himself). If so, with few exceptions (e.g., Jesus)
it is a history of failing sheep (starting with Abraham) who put blind faith
& obedience above moral righteousness.
John Dehlin didn't raise any new issues. The issues he addressed have been
raised for over 100 years. If you've listened to his podcasts,
as I have, so I would know something about what his issues are, you'd
realize that he's not just raising questions or expressing concerns. Same thing with Kate Kelly. She wasn't just asking questions and
raising her concerns. Her questions were asked and answered. She didn't
like the answer so she led a protest against the Church leadership. Twice she
was insisted on making a public demonstration at Temple Square. This isn't
how people with questions raise them if they are just questioning - this is how
people with an agenda protest to bring publicity to their agenda. Rather than
trying to seek light and knowledge, she tried at two General Conferences to put
the Church in a negative light, She knew very well what she was doing. (Sh)e that troubleth (her) own house shall inherit the wind...
Oh it has Chris. There is a feeling one gets when leaving falsehoods and myths
behind that cannot be described. I can honestly say that I am happier now than I
ever was as a member. My only real regret was not doing it sooner. I look back
on all those nights I spent begging and pleading for some kind on answer from
above. I look back in sorrow at the years I spent sincerely and honestly
searching for the kind of experience I had been promised by the religion of my
youth only to be let down every time.One of the things I've
discovered after having left the LDS Church is that almost everyone I've
met who has also left did so not because we were offended or hurt or wanted to
sin. But simply because we learned it wasn't true. I know that's hard
for some people to believe, I know from experience that members need to believe
we left because we did something wrong. In truth we have left because we simply
found the truth.
Typically I would never feel comfortable talking about an upcoming disciplinary
council for someone, particularly someone I don't know: but, when the
individual takes her situation to a national newspaper, they've opened the
door for discussion and criticism. These sensitive and deeply
personal issues should be kept sensitive and personal. To flaunt her
disciplinary council summons publicly speaks volumes of where she stands. May
The Lord bless her with wisdom and understanding, and fast!
First of all, I am not of the LDS faith. This article is of interest as it seems
to be a repeat of many such issues of our day. While I don't pretend to
understand the teaching of the LDS faith, I have not encountered too many
members who have a big issue with equality in this church. It seems to me that
based upon the declaration that this is Heavenly Father's church, should
this group first take this issue up with the one whose church it is rather than
continue to stir up problems? No one is asking you to stay a member or require
that you do. Simply find a faith that aligns with what your current beliefs are.
I also don't think that Christ changes his doctrine based on popular
opinion or the current trends in society. From what I see, it is the individual
who must come to Christ, his door is always open.
@Ironhide – “The Savior could have given the priesthood to many
women he encountered during His work on the earth but He didn't.”I guess you’re not familiar with the Nag Hammadi library or the
Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
It is truly a tragedy if John Dehlin is excommunicated. If you did a poll of
all LDS members and looked at many doctorine a of the church, I am sure that 90%
of church members do not agree with one piece of doctrine or another. How could
you not? There is some really wacky stuff we believe in, past and present. Dehlin gives hope that you can somehow stay in the church whether you
believe every last piece of the craziness or not. I love the church, I love the
culture and teachings, leaders etc.Big mistake to let him go! He
does much more good than he does harm.
Never, ever been able to fathom the idea discussed here of individuals being
"lost" if not belonging to LDS Church, or not following each and every
single, solitary one of the laws of this religion. Lost? Really?How
many good, decent, honest, family oriented people who simply are just not
interested in the LDS faith are now lost? One cannot express concerns about
questions that may be difficult to understand or get answers about? They are
then "Lost"?Does no one in the Mormon Church understand how
outrageous this sounds to the rest of the world.Commenters have mentioned
"LDS elitist". Certainly sounds that way.This "lost"
principal is one "tenet" from a Mormon God that the LDS must have
totally misunderstood or misinterpreted.
What is unfortunate about John Dehlin is he was trying to open up a dialogue
about the church's troubled past. The truth is, and honest Church
historians will even confirm, is that Joseph Smith and his family did engage in
treasure seeking activities. Joseph Smith was a treasure seer and the reality is
there was a belief among treasure seers that native American guardian angels
guarded their buried treasures. Joseph Smith stuck his head into a hat with peep
stones at the bottom of the hat to locate treasures. What's troubling is
this is also the method by which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.
Also the church has never been that open about Joseph Smith's practice of
polyandry, marrying other men's wives while the men were still alive. I am
not advocating anti-Mormonism but the reality is many members are ignorant about
these troubling issues. Hanns Mattson member of the third quorum of the seventy
left the church over these troubling issues. I thank John Dehlin for opening up
about these issues and wish the church was more open too. Please don't
excommunicate John for being honest and open.
(Comment continued from above)By definition - and literally, to give
His gospel definition - Jesus's church must abide by clearly stated
principles and practices, or it becomes diluted and loses its meaning, value,
and distinctiveness. Those seeking a wider path where lines aren't so
clearly drawn and changes are adopted based upon the culture's zeitgeist
will continue to struggle here.The worth of each soul is great, and
the potential loss of these two people is no small matter. Nor is the suffering
of those who are confused or frustrated by the church's actions against
their practices. I agree with expressions of mercy and kindness in this thread
and, whether inside or outside the church, I hope all who are stirred up by
these types of issues can ultimately find peace. We all need God’s help,
for we all struggle with our own stuff.
Among the many prizes found in the scriptures, I believe that few are better
than that found in the Book of Mormon in 1 Nephi 8. It describes the journey we
all make through life, the dangers and adversities that we face, and the
ultimate goal we seek. These words are instructive: "And I also beheld a
strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree
(of eternal life) . . ." These words were repeated a little over 600 years
later by Jesus when He said, ". . . strait is the gate, and narrow is the
way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."For
those who accept this as the Church of Jesus Christ, complaints of its
“narrow” views must be laid at the feet of its Founder.(Comment continued below)
These women don't want "the priesthood". They just want what every
other Christian woman wants and receives according to Christ's word in the
Bible. They want to be able to have personal salvation on their own and be able
to "get to heaven" on their own faith. NOT to have to be married to a
"priesthood holder". God is in control of all things, she will leave the
LDS church and find her way to a relationship with the real Jesus. God bless her
and anyone that follows her. "Knock and the door will be opened."
I disagree with the church. John Dehlin is more christ-like and loving than most
members of this church.
You all realize that if Jesus would have been held to the same standard in his
day by church leaders, he would have been given a stern talking to, severely
sanctioned, or worse.Oh wait…
I grew up in the Stake that's Ms. Kelly is from. I know many of the
leaders in this stake. I have been counciled by the leaders in that stake when
my actions were not in line with the churches teaching. Although now I have gone
a different direction in my life I have never questioned the love and sincerity
those leaders had for me and will always be grateful to then for it.
There is a fundamental inconsistency between what Kate Kelly does and with what
she says she believes to be true. On the one hand Kelly wants the sisters of the
Church to be given the Priesthood... a Priesthood she apparently believes has
power and gives the righteous Priesthood holder some sort of authority the
sisters don't seem to have without it (otherwise, why all the fuss over
something she doesn't believe in to begin with?). If she believes this is
true, then she must also believe that the LDS Church is Christs Church on the
Earth and that it is lead by prophets and apostles with the prophet of the
Church today, Thomas Monson, holding all the keys to the Kingdom, and supposedly
able to unilaterally grant her the Priesthood without Christs consent or
blessing. If she believes she must be given the Priesthood by one
with authority, and that authority resides with her Priesthood leaders in the
LDS Church, she then obviously believes the LDS Church possesses the power and
authority to give Christs Priesthood. Why, then is she willing to be
excommunicated from Christs church and cut off from the very thing she desires?
I've read statements of hers in other articles about this being done by her
old ward after she'd moved away. Is that normal? I mean, it seems highly
inconvenient to not just transfer her records to the new ward and have them be
the ones to decide what to do.
This is really straight forward. Her issue isn't with church headquarters.
It is with Heavenly Father. The Savior could have given the priesthood to many
women he encountered during His work on the earth but He didn't. Yet women
have the same access to it's power as men,they just are not ordained. It is
difficult not to feel like she is scratching an itch from her past. Then she
tops it off with telling one of the most well known news outlets in the world.
If that isn't contrition and humility from honest and sincere intent, I
don't know what is! Good grief. With such egregious actions, then the
perspective wanders to other motives like attention or capitalizing on the
spotlight she is getting. Bad form and poor approach from any vantage point it
Running to the NYT to announce that you may be subject to church discipline for
your actions is very telling. Disciplinary councils are entirely confidential
and are kept that way for a reason. It is a sad thing that she chose to reveal
this in the way that she did. My opinion is that this was her plan all along.
Bend to my will or I will drag you through the mud. Seriously doubt this will
damage the Church much at all. Truth be told, it most likely will bring more
into the fold. The work will progress and this little bump in the road will not
"While they who reject this glad message shall never such happiness
know" And I know many of them.
I think that this will be a classical example of someone who leaves the church,
but won't be able to leave the church alone.
If they don't agree with things, then they can easily move on.
"Throughout my Mormon adulthood, I have discovered that the
Judeo-Christian/Mormon God that was taught to me in seminary--the God that
requested Isaac’s sacrifice of Abraham as a test, and cursed Job for
sport; the God that would send his Son to die, instead of facing the suffering
Himself; the God that sent an angel with a flaming sword to Joseph; the God that
blamed the members for the failures of Zion’s camp; the God whose
divinely-led church still finds a way to either oppose or remain behind the
times on any significant civil rights or social justice movement; the God who,
instead,directs His church to build a multi-billion dollar commercial
shopping mall over channeling the widow’s mite to the poor. I struggle to
believe in this type of God." --John Dehlin, 2012 Sunstone SymposiumYou can believe what you want, or not. Makes no never-mind to me. But
when your beliefs--and what you teach--are so out of sync with the teachings of
the church you belong to, why remain?
I am always very sad to see someone lose their testimony and campaign against
the church doctrines. For non members it's expected, especially since they
are not in touch with the confirmation of the Spirit. But when someone has
learned how to feel the Spirit and knows how to remember that feeling and
conviction, it's always sad to see the countenance sink and the blessings
withdraw. I truly hope that one day, Ms. Kelly will respond differently than
did Sonia Johnson. There have been some who have figured things out and
returned. Some have not. Ms. Kelly says that excommunication is being kicked
out of her eternal family. If she believes that, she will live her life
consistently with that conviction. If she does not believe it, then her game
continues and her anticipated consequences are just. I pray she will search her
soul and learn that teachings about her eternal family are true.
Everyone, everywhere is taught that there is opposition in all things.Perhaps these ladies will form some sort of offshoot religious order as some
Catholic, Jews, and other Christian faiths have done over the years. It would be
interesting to observe how many other LDS women may then follow them. We all
know that many Mormon women do speak up when controversies like this are
discussed.Anyone recall the Anglican Church origins, for instance? This
religion as become a large and respected faith since it's beginnings.Many here on this and related comment forums have strongly stated that God
loves all of his children.If one is trying to worship in a decent, honest
way, that feels real and important to them, that truly may be all that God
expects of us.I would hope these women would not feel either threatened or
intimidated and will continue doing what they feel in their hearts is correct.
I think outside the box, but Kate Kelly, her cause, and her approach never
resonated with me. I wish her the best in the future, though.
Wraith,I congratulate you on your decision to leave the lds church.
No doubt the decision will bring your great joy an peace.
During my agonizing faith crises, John Dehlin helped me continue with hope. His
conferences and podcasts helped me more than I can say. This makes me so very
Sad to see that so many are glad / hoping to see these people go. The better
solution is for everyone to reach out to her and help her to stay. "Faith
unto repentance" is our message. We all need to put it more into action.
I am so glad John Dehlin is facing excommunication. He has long valued his
church membership only as "sheep's clothing" so he could claim on
his website that he is giving a fair and balanced view, and that he is a person
who is struggling with the same kind of issues they are and he truly
understands, etc, etc. To ex-Mormon groups he bragged about how many people he
persuaded to leave the church. He is exactly the kind of person who needs to be
excommunicated so that he can not keep speaking to the press as an "active
Mormon." He did all in his power to undermine the church and only used his
membership, which he is loathe to lose for that very reason, because it gave him
cover. Good riddance.
Pride goeth before the fall.
Interesting. The only way we'll know what happens next is if these
disaffected members continue to talk about it afterwards.In some
ways, the Church is handicapped by its duty of confidentiality in disciplinary
proceedings. Members who are disclplined or excommunicated are free to tell a
one-sided story, but the Church does not disclose what actually happened, and
the facts upon which leaders relied, in response. Maybe a change of policy, as
in, "If you talk, you waive your right to confidentiality" might chill
some of the bad press that ex-members try to generate, particularly if they knew
that their deeds would become public. But, it will never happen--the door to
repentance must always be open.
Yes Shaun those are the two ways. It used to be very difficult to have your name
removed voluntarily but the church has made it much easier over time. I actually
emailed my request and my name was removed 2 months later.
Is the only way to get rid of your membership is to be excommunicated or can you
call the church and just say you no longer want to be a member?
This was inevitable, and moreover long overdue. It is what happens when people
try to fight against God.
Made me think of the following verse in the doctrine and covenants:"..when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain
ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the
children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw
themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to
the priesthood or the authority of that man."Behold, ere he is
aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the
saints, and to fight against God."The Church has addressed the
concerns of these members. I have no problem with them leaving the Church.
They are creating a major distraction / hiderance for probably a lot of church
members. Time that the leadership could have been spending on other more
pressing issues is getting diverted to these ridiculous notions.Every conference we sustain the raise our hands and sustain the President of
the Church, his councilors and the other apostles of the Church as Prophets,
Seers, and Revelators.I wonder if the members mentioned in this
article missed that portion of conference?
So sad; but she made a choice; she knew what she was doing and what the
consequences would be. You can have your personal doubts but once you start to
seek followers and create doubt in others, church discipline will almost always
follow. I don't presume to know what that discipline will be or how severe.
But it is sad when you see someone assume that they know what's best or are
more enlightened than God's chosen servants; in this case His Prophet. My
heart goes out to her. I hope that one day she can find peace, hope and
understanding through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and return back into His
My heart goes out to John Dehlin, and especially his family. He's a good
man, and he cares deeply for those with whom he associates. He has saved lives,
and helped dozens of people remain in the church despite their questions and
doubts. Anyone who wonders why he wants to stay a part of the church despite
questioning history and doctrines need only consider community, culture, family,
and a sense of belonging. It's a no-brainer to want to remain part of the
culture you know and love. This news is shocking.
Legalize_the_constitution: I would call a person who continuosly and publicly
advocates changing church doctrine by protest, an apostate. therefore the
church court. If she goes through the entire scenario, the very worst that can
happen to her is that she will be removed from membership in the church. she
will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property. This will be totally her
call.HRM: We don't "want them to go!" What we do want
them to do is repentant. When The Savior visited the Nephites, he told them
that all would be welcome in the church but if they transgressed and there were
witnesses, and they didn't repent, then their names were to be blotted out.
nevertheless, they were still to be loved. see 3Nephi 18:31 (read the entire
chapter) and Moroni 6:7 (once again the entire chapter)It pains me
to see people leave the Gospel because of things like this, but the call is
theirs, and to all of you who think the brethren are being unreasonable, what do
the doctrines say?
I think that some misunderstand how revelation even works. Obtaining revelation
is not about asking questions. It is about asking inspired questions. Inspired
questions lead to inspired answers. Uninspired questions, lead to either no
answer, or an answer from a deceiving source. Inspired questions are planted in
our hearts and minds by the power of the Holy Ghost, as we humbly seek guidance
from God. I've also learned in a very painful way, that the divinely
decreed bounds of stewardships also influence what revelation we may, or may not
be authorized to receive. When we seek to step out of our stewardships in any
way, the adversary has power to lead us astray. Nobody is immune. Follow the
I am sad to hear this. I obviously don't know the details of her case on a
personal level, which may include behavior worthy of excommunication (which is
therefore none of my business). Based on what I have read on ordainwomen.org,
the discussion there does not attempt to lead people astray, it encourages
responsibly asking questions and seeking answers. Nor does it act against the
causes of the LDS church. It appears to be a site that fosters discussion about
the inequality within the LDS church. They believe that equality cannot be
achieved if women are not ordained. That is purely an opinion that they want
church leaders to be more acquainted with so that they can ponder it and pray
about it. I am not sure what the fuss is all about or why that idea makes people
so angry. Weird.
Did she not see this coming? This is total apostasy. There will be
many within the church who fight against the leaders and doctrine. We as
members need to stay strong and follow the doctrine and teachings of Christ.Press forward saints!
>>If you don't truly believe the doctrine, it would make sense to
ask why women are not ordained.Sure, there's no harm in asking
questions about doctrine; in fact, members should be encouraged to ask
questions. The Church is, in a sense, a school where we go to learn about Christ
and His doctrine. And those honestly seeking answers about why women aren't
ordained, Elder Oaks provided a marvelous answer last April.Staging
press events and mobilizing others to demand Church leaders to let you and your
clique into meetings when you've been told repeatedly that you will not be
admitted are not the actions of someone who's humbly seeking answers to
legitimate questions. They are the actions of someone who's made up her
mind that the doctrine was wrong and is actively mobilizing other members to
pressure the General Authorities to change it. That's a different beast
entirely -- simply put, it's rebellion.
HRMThere is a huge difference between asking question and openly
opposing church doctrine. The church will never be secularized like you want it
to be and it will never be of the world.
One of the undeniable results of Kate Kelley's actions is the response it
brings from the LDS-haters. Just go the the competing paper's comment
section and see what is being written. I read one or two comments and that was
enough for me.She is also unwittingly (or otherwise - only she
knows) causing much harm to individual members of the Church that might have a
bit of wavering testimony. The harm she potentially causes in her own life is
one thing; when it starts impacting others, it becomes an extremely serious
matter. Hopefully she can change course before it is too late - for
her and those who choose to follow her.
I'm not surprised that Kate Kelly drew criticism from Church leaders, but
was very surprised that John Dehlin and his "Mormon Stories" website
would offend anyone. I haven't visited the site recently but in the past it
seemed quite positive and was encouraging people to reconcile their doubts with
the good the church does. I am not LDS but I have seen similar websites in the
Catholic faith that seek to make peace with conflicting feelings about religion.
@mostlygizzards how do you know what Christ would of done? He runs this church
and said he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. You have
to agree to certain things before baptism, and for the sake of the transgressor
Disfellowshipment of excommunication is needed for there sake. Have to preserve
the integrity of the church and protect the sinners. Christ would be generous
with people that had to have discipline but sometimes it is necessary, Jesus
was stern in denouncing sin and cleansing the temple because that was best for
people at the time.
Although I never truly struggled with this issue, I put myself in the shoes of
those who are choosing to follow her. The spirit definitely told me the choice
is to follow Kate Kelly, a regular person, or the prophet. I choose the
prophet. Unfortunately, I fear that there may be many others who will end up in
this same situation because they choose to follow Kate Kelly and not the
prophet. Between this and same sex marriage, I could see a possible mass exodus
from the church. So sad to loose your testimony over this.
I never understood Kate Kelly's issues but I thought Dehlin was trying to
do good within the church even if he wasn't always right.
Not surprised and frankly glad to see progress in this matter. We all knew how
this sad story would end before it happened.I can only hope those
that were somehow influenced by this woman will now consider their own
relationship to the Savior, their position in the church, its leadership and
hopefully correct their course.
Church discipline is warranted - and oddly enough, should be expected by these
members. Even more so when it involves others who are merely followers in an
effort to show support. Why the push to become ordained?
I'm not sure what the church hopes to gain, but I'm sure they are
under no illusion that this will make Ordain Women or any other critical groups
disappear. The odds of this ending well for anyone are not high, but I'm
not sure what Kelly and Dehlin expected. The church's tolerance for
criticism may have expanded over the last twenty years, but there's still a
line. That shouldn't come as a surprise for anyone.
Disagreeing with doctrine and/or leaders is one thing (and I think there is room
in the Church for this), publicly proselytizing for the purposes of causing
disruption is another. Also, in some cases, their are people in
these groups that haven't been involved or active in the Church for several
years, but seem to be joining in for the fun of it. This isn't
productive thought, it's an annoyance, and hurting the Church. No one is forced to believe a certain way.
I don't know how they can say they are surprised by the likelihood of
disciplinary action. Surely they know what they are doing. Unfortunately,
apostasy is apostasy, and eventually disciplinary action has to take place. As
for bad publicity and fueling the fire, does anybody remember Sonja Johnson?
She has largely faded from memory. So will others who fight against Church
doctrines and practices. It is sad, to be sure.
You are either IN and follow the tenets of a religion or you get OUT. I
don't think God lets us pick and chooses which things we agree with
I'm absolutely floored by some of these comments... John Dehlin, among
others, has actually helped me to reconcile my faith in the Gospel with many of
the problems I have with the Church and stay an active member. I can't
think of a worse way to describe an "apostate." Having said that, I see
no reason to point fingers at either individual nor rejoice in what's
happening to them. I don't know why we all can't stop acting towards
others like we're all a part of some elitist club instead of just extending
There are many on-ramps to the road to apostasy. All are clearly marked with
ample warnings to turn around. She knew this was one of them, and yet chose
proceed. Even now, I'm sure it's not too late for a
U-turn. But sadly, like other apostates, I'm sure her heart has become
hardened. Tragically, once she has left the Church, her bitterness will make it
hard to leave it alone.
An obvious outcome. She joined, became disenchanted with the religious views,
sought to change them, then wonders why she is being asked to resign her
membership. It's not rocket science.
Craig,if you were to consistently go against your boss at work, and then
complain about him to the media, would you still have your job? I think not.
The Church is different in that Sister Kelly has been advised not to go against
the doctrines of the Church, yet she continued to do so. Going to the media,
people who know nothing of, and who do not understand the tenets of the Church,
was not a wise decision on her part. Yes, we have independent views, but going
against the doctrine is cause for disciplinary action.
The Dehlin situation has nothing to do with Ordain Women. For years, John Dehlin
has vacillated in his public expressions about the Church but lately seems to
have become increasingly alienated. Back when his object was ostensibly to help
people with doubts find ways to stay LDS, I felt he was doing some good. I
personally enjoyed many of his writings and podcasts. But lately his doubts have
gained the upper hand. Sad to see things reach this point but when
one is so public about it, he/she should probably expect that the Church will
eventually feel it necessary to respond. Same with Kelly in that regard.
Don't give them the satisfaction of a disciplinary council. Just ignore
LDS Church may discipline 2 members.In other news, this NY Times
reporter has written about church discipline in the past and the church issued a
If one truly believes the doctrine, there is not room to dispute. If you
don't truly believe the doctrine, it would make sense to ask why women are
Kate Kelly should have seen this coming. Being put on informal probation
isn't just for fun. It is intended to get a person started on the right
path and help them correct inappropriate behavior. She continued her
activities, even after being put on informal probation so a disciplinary council
now becomes necessary to address possibly more serious discipline. I'm sad
that she has chosen to push it this far, but not surprised.The
Church will not be harmed in the long run by this. I remember when Sonja
Johnson and others acted similarly in the 1970's. She was excommunicated
and only she has suffered lasting consequences from her actions. The Church has
moved on and will go on beyond this current situation.
What is most heartbreaking in this is to read the vitriolic, hateful, even
gleeful comments aimed at Brother Dehlin and Sister Kelly. We should not want
them to go! This is not what Christ would have done, nor what He instructed us
to do. He set an example for us by leaving the 99 and seeking out the 1. He
didn't say, "Good riddance, 1! We don't need or want you!" He
instructed us to love one another, and to offer charity to our brothers and
sisters. What is charitable about this?Also, those of us who are
members of the LDS church would do well to remember that we covenanted to mourn
with those who mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort. I must
have missed somewhere a covenant to ridicule and force out anyone with whom we
don't agree. This seems like a political move on the
church's part to suppress and exclude anyone with temerity to ask
questions, even though asking questions is what led to the restoration in the
Very saddened by this news, I thought the church had grown more accepting of
different viewpoints. This type of action will only lead to more isolation for
the church. Differences in orthodoxy should not be a litmus test for
membership. As an active member all my life, I'm very dismayed by this
This makes me very sad. I'm not upset that the Church is taking discipline
action. I'm sad because I know that these two individuals have (or had) a
testimony. It is in there somewhere. There are so many blessings that are lost
by not following the words of the prophets. I wish I could talk to them and say
"Please! You can find happiness! You already know this. It isn't found
in opposing the will of the Lord but in the doing of it."
The only way that Kate Kelly would be excommunicated would be if she becomes
openly defiant with her church authorities. If she shows the least bit of
willingness to work this through with church authorities, she may be
disfellowshipped at the most. The ball is totally in her court how she wants to
conduct herself before a disciplinary council. I speak from experience on the
matter having been in a Bishopric. Excommunication is reserved for those who are
defiant and unrepentant and/or choose to have their names removed from the
records of the church.
But it does not change the course of the church, they hurt only themselves, and
mark themselves as apostates. Apostates who, nevertheless, do have strong
convictions of the truth of the gospel taught within the church, and true
conviction in the atonement of their Savior Jesus Christ, but nevertheless
choose to not abide by the structure of the church, which has been set forth by
revelation, and is structured according to revelation, and is not
"changed" by man, but through additional revelation. Patience is key.
Not causing damage to the church membership while waiting is key. Having FAITH
that the church is guided by Christ, through the Patriarchal Order of the
Priesthood is key. Knowing that individual worth is enough is key. Woman are the
greatest and grandest creation. Woman have been endowed with powers of
motherhood that men will not ever be given in all eternity. And that is a
greater and grandeur blessing than our ability to utilize the priesthood in
ordinances in ways that women (as currently revealed) cannot. 2 of 2
I just hope that after Ms. Kelley has her 15 minutes of fame, which should
include 5 minutes on a national morning show and some ink in the "Times"
she will get on with her life and be yesterday's news. I am
sure those facing discipline will milk it for all it's worth. The game of
victim-hood is well played among the Liberal Left. Martyrs abound but after all
is said and done, they will be in the past as new victims rise to the fore.I think their ripple in the pond of life will be smaller than they
envision.Perhaps Ms. Kelley can find a theology or faith that will
permit her membership and she can find the status and position she seeks.
You call them Mormon activists but aren't they really anti Mormon
activists? They are against Mormon church policy, thus they are anti.
The protestors come and go. Remember Sonia Johnson? Probably not. That's
It is impossible to be a member in good standing if one repeatedly and
continually evangelizes positions and arguments that are contrary to church
doctrine. The church is not unique in this - nearly any
organization will likely withdraw membership privileges from a member who is in
vocal opposition to the charter or tenets of the organization.This
should be a surprise to no one. If a person is diametrically to opposed to
church doctrine, how can they expect or even wish to retain the privileges of
To ya'll that are saying things like, "hopefully this is the last we
hear from her" and "it's about time"... be careful.Matt 7:1-5.
There are thousands of members of the church that don't believe certain of
the doctrines and claims of the church but who nonetheless find value in being a
member. Kate and John were at the forefront of helping many of them reconcile
that in their lives. It's a difficult thing to do alone. This sends a
message that even though the church publicly says they want to be inclusive and
include these people, their actions may indicate otherwise.
ALL are welcomed to join the body of Christ, and ALL are welcomed to heed his
call. Part of heeding his call is obedience to the principles and ordinances set
forth in his gospel. Having questions is one thing. Wondering if changes should
be made is one thing. But when people raise up an unrest, and (purposefully or
not) damage many people with fledgling testimonies, then they are a negative
force toward the growth of the church. Many LDS do not have a firm enough
testimony. Yes, this is a personal failing on their part, due to not seeking for
one enough. However, these people, when they leave the church.... did so
"early", before they had a full conversion. They would have had a
different future in the church, if not dissuaded by organized apostatized
thought. LDS investigators may also have been turned away from possible
conversion... in droves. That is what internal dissension and contention causes.
Concerning people who say they will be removing themselves from the Church over
this, people "marking themselves" by purposefully removing themselves
from church membership (for any reason), is sad and disheartening. 1 of 2
"the Church is not a political organization caving in to political
correctness."Prop 8 Civil Rights (Blacks &
Priesthood)Polygamy & "The Manifesto"Yeah,
I'm not seeing a pattern here, at all.
Cloak yourself in church membership, act in open agression against church policy
showing that you believe Christ is not the head of the church, receive warnings
to change your behavior and repeat instead. Find out that church discipline is
coming and run to the New York Times to receive praise instead of your Heavenly
Father to receive council. Yes, these people are true disciples. Now write a
book, go on speaking tours, trash what you say you once believed in, lead other
astray and you will come to copy the workings of a fallen angel I heard about
once. Good luck to you both and those that follow you.
Kate Kelly conjures a modern day Emma Smith. She stood on principle, and ended
up despised by
What'd she expect to happen? Did she really believe that she
was going to be the first female to EVER receive the priesthood? Did she
honestly believe that she was going to change the Savior's mind? Did she
truly think that the church leaders were going to ignore her and her sidekicks?
When you fight against the leaders of the church, you will be
reprimanded. The fact that she is publicizing this and telling the media shows
she doesn't give two hoots what happens to her. It's completely
un-remorseful. She has no shame. She wants to be on a headline and lead a group
down so she doesn't go alone.
You mean you can't teach against the doctrine of a church and not face
consequances. Listen people this church has specific teachings in regards to
where its doctrine comes from I don't care whether you believe it or not as
a non member but as a member when sustain these brethren in conference you are
acknowledging that you agree with the doctrine and will recognize their callings
and all that entails unlike other churches we don't hold committees to
determine our doctrine or take votes to alter it. You are not forced to follow
their counsel either you are counseled to search it out for yourself but if you
claim to acknowledge the leadership of the church as we claim then if you are in
conflict with what the leaders are saying you might need to re-evaluate
yourself. This sister should listen to Elder Oaks last conference talk he pretty
much settled it.This happened once in Kirtland when some members tried a coup
against Jospeh smith. Brigham young's answer to them is my answer as well.
for the cynics please don't mention Polygamy or Blacks and the priesthood
you'll only embarass yourself.
No story here, just sad.
If expressing independent views is cause for disciplinary action, then the LDS
Church still has a lot of maturing to do before it’s a religion for
She should not exhibit her surprise in this matter. Ms. Kelly ventured on this
path and is now taking it to its logical conclusion. It is sad, but could have
been avoided. Choices have consequences.
We make covenants when we are baptized and when we go to the temple. When some
of those covenants are broken and are quite serious, then there is a need to go
through Church discipline. What offends me more from the "infraction"
that these mentioned people did, is that they took it to a national media who
has no understanding about the Church and how it is structured.
I have a feeling that any of you who are thinking and/or hoping that these
things are just going to go away are going to be sorely disappointed.
No surprise here. I'm sorry for these people. Those who have walked this
path of "I love my church so much I'm willing to cause turbulence to
make it better" have never ended up in a good place. Walking in strange
paths starts innocent enough and when a course correction is pointed out but not
made, when someone feels they know better than those with God-given authority,
they can find themselves in a really tragic place. For observers It's kind
of of like watching an approaching car accident and being helpless to do
anything about it. Just sad.
I don't know why these people want to stay in a church that they don't
believe is of God. The only possible explanation is that they get more attention
by staying than they would by leaving. It seems to me that this is all about
being in the lime-light. There would be no other reason to go running to the NY
@Lifelong UteI agree that Kate Kelley's course seemed to be
leading to church discipline. I hope it's not the last we hear of her. I
hope that she figures out that it really is more about responsibility than
rights, and becomes an outspoken supporter of the prophet. Not likely, but I
They resurrected Sonja Johnson and these folks are going to learn they are not
above Church discipline.
Why do you think John needs Church discipline?
It would be hard to deny that the Church has been patient and longsuffering with
Sister Kelly. She has pushed against the Brethren in her marches on Temple
Square, knowing in advance that she would be turned away.Talks have been
given, directed at her question, and yet she somehow thought there was a special
answer for her.She did not get the message, yet His arms are is
outstretched still. This is not the end for her. She has the upcoming
disciplinary counsel, but she must attend, and she must go in the spirit of
humility and teachableness. From her comments to the NYT, it appears that
she is not contrite, claiming instead that she must be true to herself.I
hope she changes her heart and follows the counsel given.
Kate Kelly faces "possible excommunication or other discipline for
'openly, repeatedly and deliberately acting in public opposition to the
church and its leaders after having been counseled not to do so.'" As
the articles states, all organizations have boundaries...she knows the
boundaries and has continually ignored them. Now come the consequences. The last several paragraphs about how the LDS Church handles matters of
this privately are well stated. I hope church detractors will read and re-read
these paragraphs when they want to condemn the church for whatever actions may
be taken in Ms. Kelly's case. SHE IS responsible for whatever sanctions
her stake president and other stake leaders impose.I truly wish her
Surprised it didn't happen sooner. The writing was on the wall and after
Elder Oak's talk in April it should be happening.
If Dehlin no longer believes "many of the fundamental LDS church truth
claims" then why is he seeking the Priesthood for female members? Sounds
like he is just trying to create discord among the members. I respect his
beliefs and hope that this matter can be resolved in a manner that respects the
dignity of both the LDS church and its members.
I was wondering how long the Church would let her continue her protests against
doctrine. Publicly criticizing the church and organizing groups against it will
always bring some kind of disciplinary action.
Some people feel that they can oppose an organization, work against its
purposes, and try to influence others to think and act against the organization,
and remain a member of the organization. Can you imagine behaving in such a way
at your employment? What if you volunteered at a food pantry, but while there
you protested the efforts of the pantry, spoke against it, and tried to get
others opposed to it. The food pantry wouldn't invite you to return.Those opposed to the LDS church, who actively work against it, and try
to enlist other members to oppose the church, shouldn't feel bad if the
church excommunicates them, or removes their membership.
Kate Kelly has to have already accepted the fact that disciplinary action was
probably in her future and planned accordingly. Speaking with the New York
Times, tells me she is on schedule.
This is a huge mistake for the Church if their goal is to make these movements
go away. Making a martyr out of the leader of an organization will only
galvanize and mobilize the followers of Mormon Stories and Ordain Women. If
anyone should understand this dynamic its the LDS Church.
I'm sad today. This is not what Christ would have done.
It is about time John Dehlin faced Church discipline.
If you are actively protesting about key doctrines, than don't be surprised
that you are facing church discipline.