Decision pending for activist in conflict with LDS Church

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • decosta mesa, AZ
    June 25, 2014 8:05 p.m.

    Can someone tell me what benefits woman are missing out on by not holding the Priesthood? Because holding the Priesthood is a responsibility that comes with many expectations of obedience and is useless without the holder of the Priesthood being worthy, in God's eyes, to actually be of any use to anyone, especially the one who holds it! Just because many men have said they are worthy to hold it and have been bestowed with it? Is all relative, if they are in fact not worthy to hold it and thus the bestowal of it is useless to these individuals and will actually be to their condemnation for taking such a sacred thing and abusing it! We as Woman do reap the benefits in every which way possible that it can benefit us, but without having to take the accountability of the men who have promised to use it in righteousness and only for the purposes of righteousness! There is always going to be some one, somewhere who wants to make an issue out of something... Today is a few women who want the Priesthood, tomorrow it will be something else!

  • decosta mesa, AZ
    June 25, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    God is the Same yesterday, today, and always! Just because changes have occurred in the Lord's Church, has nothing to do with trying to be more progressive in nature! The Lord knows what he is doing? He know the beginning from the end! He has nothing to prove! So why do we, who have chosen to join his Church because we believe number 1.) The Plan of Salvation. for 2.) The B of M as being another Testimony of Jesus Christ. 3.) Have by our own agency, believed that the Lord, through Joseph Smith, has chosen to restore all things as they once were before the Lord took them from this earth. Now feel that our Church is not the Church it ought to be? This is not man's Church! This is The Lord's Church! When we try to change things, just because we believe things should change, for whatever ridiculous reason we are feeling at that time in our lives, why does that all of a sudden make you disappointed in "the Lord's restored Church" with it's ageless Doctrine and Commandments?

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    June 24, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    "If you look at any picture of christ organizing his church there isn't a woman among them, during the last supper, no women."

    I don't see any non-Jews, either. Or clean-shaven men. Or Americans. Or people over the age of forty. Or English speakers.

    Scripture explicitly declares that women are not to speak in church. I heard one speak just two Sundays ago. (I have female relatives who frankly will not *stop* speaking when they get up during Fast & Testimony meeting.) What is the basis for our disregarding this clear, explicit scriptural command?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    June 24, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    Openminded Mormon/LDS Liberal

    "The Church WILL change,
    count on it -- why
    else have a Living Prophet if everything is written in stone?
    Whether its over Same-Sex marriage or Women and the Priesthood -- I don't know."

    I'm not holding my breath for that one.

  • neece Logan, UT
    June 24, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    eastcoastcoug: You should do your homework the LDS is far from the only church that excommunicates its members, the Catholic does, amish, quaker, Church of England, Jehovah's Witness... need I go on?

    If you look at any picture of christ organizing his church there isn't a woman among them, during the last supper, no women. This is the Church of Jesus christ of Latter day saints. It is His church, organized his way. I personally do not have a problem with not having the priesthood no more than my husband wishes he could get pregnant. I am happy with my role as a woman in the LDS church. We do have equality. You know from the beginning about apostasy, and publicly teaching that other than Jesus Christ Doctrine. "Man can not change what God has made. man cannot change Laws that God himself has made". Kelly is all about women's rights. She is a feminist just trying to make waves in the church.

  • Jan Jones West Valley City, UT
    June 23, 2014 11:53 p.m.

    It would be easy for her to leave the LDS church. But she loves the church, so rather than leaving she is fighting to change what she believes is a problem with that organization. Anyone who is willing to fight for change when they identify a problem, despite the consequences, is to be admired. Those who won't speak up are to be pitied. If it weren't for dissent, African Americans would probably still not be allowed to belong to the Priesthood of the LDS church.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:34 p.m.

    @ lib

    I was thinking the same thing. To be "true to one's authentic self" sounds selfish to me, and the opposite of "putting off the natural man" which we have been counseled to do in more than one talk in general conference lately. My "authentic self" wants to lay in bed all day eating bon-bons and watching soap operas, while others take over my responsibilities, and wait on me hand and foot. While that would be fun (for about a day) it would not be good for me or those around me.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    June 23, 2014 9:29 p.m.

    @Good Mojo, if what you say is true, then why are you against changing the situation and giving women the priesthood. I all sounds like selfish rationalization to justify male chauvinism and church office politics. Nome of it has anything to do with god, it is all just mans politics using god as a straw man.

  • Just one more opinion Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:45 p.m.

    I don't know this person in any way, but I do fear for her soul. She could very well loose any chance of an eternal family, eternal blessings and any place in Heaven for what? Pride, it seems. I'm guessing (emphasis on guessing, I'm not a mind reader) that maybe she feels inferior due to "the glory of power and position" or that she should be given what other's have, otherwise she perceives is looked upon as an inferior? Why do people seek for positions of authority? I don't, it just makes more responsibility and gets you into more trouble with more people. Anyway, I believe that God loves all of his children equally. I hope if she does loose her membership she works to regain it; so much to loose if she chooses not to.

  • Good Mojo Tooele, UT
    June 23, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    Having the priesthood just means you are the ox who pulls the cart everyone else get's to ride in. My wife still holds the reins. If I'm stubborn and try to go my own way, I get whipped. What's to envy?

  • Fleurette Canada, 00
    June 23, 2014 7:34 p.m.

    Each men and women have their own sacred responsabilities and role in this life. They complete each other. We cannot follow the worlds ways or our own aspirations without being taken into account in front of our Savior when the time comes. We will be responsible for our own choices and thoughts. No matter the public pressure or the world views which go against our Heavenly Father's plan, the human cannot change divine laws.

  • rlsintx Plano, TX
    June 23, 2014 6:27 p.m.

    I wish her and her family well in coming to grips with the situation she has chosen for herself. There is a clearn and very simple, path back - it's called humility and sustaining the leaders of the church.

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 6:11 p.m.

    Once gave a lesson in Relief Society entitled, "Motherhood and Priesthood."
    Didn't come close to convincing me that I got the short end of the stick.
    Motherhood is far superior to holding the Priesthood. (But I am so grateful for those
    priesthood blessings which are given equally to men and women and children.)

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    June 23, 2014 6:02 p.m.

    @rea937 stated "I feel if you have a Testimony of the Church, this means you have accepted ALL of it's teaching. If you don't have this Testimony, then you should leave. It is that simple."

    I grew up Mormon, went on a mission and married in the temple and I have never met a Mormon that believed ALL that the LDS prophets have said from God! That would involve the prophets being infallible. There are all kinds of teachings by Mormon prophets that even the subsequent LDS prophets disagreed with.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    June 23, 2014 5:53 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon: Are you really open minded or is that wishful thinking? The Lord has already stated the answer Ms. Kelly wants to hear as stated by Elder Oaks in the last General Conference. I suggest you go back and study that talk in its entirety. You may actually learn something. Secondly, since the beginning of time no woman has ever held the Priesthood since Adam until now. Yes, Adam held the Priesthood and so did his sons, of which we are.

    Secondly, since the time of Adam marriage is defined as between man and woman. Notice I didn't say one man and one woman but man and woman. Why? Because when the Lord so directs it as it is taught consistently in my some 60 years in the Gospel has not changed, polygamy will be allowed. Again that will come when the Lord so directs. So if you think same-sex marriage will ever become doctrine then you will have to wait for an eternity because it will not happen.

    In both these issues the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will stand alone in this doctrine and it is right.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 23, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    I've been around long enought to personally witness changes in position or doctrine within the Church.

    I also witnessed many good Latter-Day Saints leave the Church and call the Prophet fallen for those changes.

    Same thing happened over polygamy 135 years ago.
    Balcks in the Priesthood,
    and Women giving prayers in Sacrament Meetings and NOW even in General Conference.

    The Church WILL change,
    count on it -- why else have a Living Prophet if everything is written in stone?

    Whether its over Same-Sex marriage or Women and the Priesthood -- I don't know.

    The key is the same as it always has been -- will you follow the Prophet, or not.

    BTW -- This whole Dispensation of the Fullest of Times was only opened because a single, since, young man simply asked a simple question?

    Being Open-minded once was what made Mormonism great,
    now - one is hated and ridiculed for it -- by fellow members, like this young women is...

    Oh, and one more thing --
    Some of you are no different than the Pharisee's,
    you can't wait to see her publically crucified for blasphemy.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    June 23, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    It is the church apologists who need to be censored, they are the ones that keep the pot of controversy boiling with their half backed excuses and eschewing of church history and the truth; and then when members educated themselves with todays access to knowledge and truth they lose confidence in the church and its honesty. The answer is to silence the pseudo apologists and for the church to open all records and church history and let the truth be told, and give members and all interested parties the privilege and right to choose based on fact, truth, hope and dedication to righteous principles and social justice.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    June 23, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    RE: Twin Lights. Open History:

    Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt was the first wife of LDS Apostle and polygamist Orson Pratt and later a critic of Mormon polygamy. She was a founder of the Anti-Polygamy Society in Salt Lake she was excommunicated on 4 October 1874.

    Ann Eliza Young was one of Brigham Young's fifty-five wives and later a critic of polygamy. She was excommunicated from the LDS Church on 10 October 1874.

    Fawn McKay Brodie one of the first female professors of history at UCLA. No Man Knows My History (1945),about Joseph Smith, Jr., In May 1946LDS Church excommunicated Brodie. She never tried to regain her membership.

    Lavina Fielding Anderson . In 1993, Anderson published a chronology documenting cases of what she regarded as spiritual abuse by LDS church leaders during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. This article became grounds for her excommunication on charges of apostasy in September 1993,

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    To "UT Brit" actually Brigham Young stated that the blacks would be the last race to get it. Again, state your source. Right now you are just spouting names, but do not offer any evidence. In 1852, in an address to the Utah Legislature referred to as "Brigham Young's Speech on Slavery, Blacks, and the Priesthood", he siad that blacks would not "hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth". It seems the time of restitution came in 1978.

    In the Journal of Discourses vol 7,it is recorded that "Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed." So apparently, Brigham Young knew the blacks would eventually get the Priesthood.

    Bruce R. McConkie stated in a speech titled "All Are Alike Unto God" that he was wrong in saying that Blacks would never receive the Priesthood (He said that before he was an apostle).

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 23, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    Craig Clark,

    Let us assume a far less public case where someone has committed adultery. Should that be a matter for the public? Would you want it to be for your family member?

  • ImABeliever Provo, UT
    June 23, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    Most likely an excommunication and a divorce in her future. Way to go just to attempt to prove some kind of point. Sad just sad.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    June 23, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    Kate Kelly claims that she has not received an answer from the prophet yet. Elder Oaks gave a general conference talk which included her answer. If she truly is a faithful member of the Church, she sustains the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, including Elder Oaks, as prophets, seers, and revelators. She has received her answer from a prophet of God already.

  • Bountiful Guy Bountiful, UT
    June 23, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    @Craig Clark

    The next time your bank or other institution opts to keep your information private, we'll all know that you believe it's because they have something to hide and to fear. The fact is that privacy is the hallmark of integrity and respect. People are not excommunicated for making public the details of their disciplinary council. That is their right. It seems that most times you comment, you do so without thinking it through. Thanks for being consistent, though.

  • UT Brit London, England
    June 23, 2014 2:29 p.m.


    I know the church believes in polygamy but it goes out of its way to keep that quiet. When pressed about it on Larry King, Hinckleys quote was "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law.". Now heres the problem, Wilford Woodruff declared that the church would no longer continue polygamy in 1890, the first President of the church who did not practice polygamy was George Albert Smith. I will leave you to count the prophets between him and Wilford Woodruf.


    The priesthood ban was taught as doctrine, Brigham Young and Bruce R taught that black people would only get the priesthood until every other man got it, dead or alive. So after the millenium basically. The church now says it had nothing to do with doctrine in the recent essay published on the church website. So was it doctrine or wasnt it?

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    June 23, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    "As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood."
    -Ordain Women Mission Statement

    Given this statement, it's a shame that Kate Kelly is trying to hide behind a facade of simply "having sincere questions." Asking questions and actively rallying behind a perceived "need for" something are two very different courses of action.

    It takes a great deal of humility to recognize one's errors and change after making them such a public matter. Kate Kelly wouldn't be the first person in history who failed to do so. Then again, she wouldn't be the first person in history who succeeded in doing so either.

    Here's hoping that she can overcome the allure of having her own followers and recognize the importance of following the teachings of someone who is much greater.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 23, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    San Diego,

    "....Who else publicizes the fact that the Church is holding a court concerning their conduct as a member?...."

    Since Kate Kelly is one who is calling attention to it and her local Church leaders want it kept private, which party is acting like the one who fears the publicity? Which side appears to have something to hide?

  • jeanie orem, UT
    June 23, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    I am so sorry Kate Kelly has chosen this hill to figuratively die on. It has been climbed by others with sad results. Unfortunately she will not be the last and each new wave of women championing this cause will feel somehow they've got it right and their results will be different. They won't be, and their efforts will only add to the broken pile found at the top of this hill.

    In the mean time the vast majority of LDS women will continue to find joy and contentment serving in the Lord's church and enjoying the blessings of the priesthood. We really don't need anything more.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    June 23, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    I'd like to point something out to the many active Mormons that can't wait for her to be excommunicated.
    1) Not one general authority has proclaimed what God's will is on this matter
    2) Ally Isom is doing the talking for the Church - where is the Priesthood?
    3) No one can find a scripture where women are excluded from the Priesthood and yet there are many scripture that seem to infer a divine right was given to Prophetess's in the OT.
    4) Women were called to give priesthood blessings from the founding of the church to the 1940's
    5) That same judgement which ye judge ye shall also be judged

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    To "Church member" when and which LDS leader said that the LDS church no longer believes in polygamy? The Official Declaration that was signed over 100 years ago only stated that they church no longer actively teaches polygamy or permits people to violate US law and engage in polygamy. The LDS church cannot ever change its position on polygamy. The Scriptures state that God commands his people to engage in polygamy from time to time. See D&C 132. To say that the church no longer believes in polygamy would be like the LDS church giving up the Book of Mormon. It won't happen.

  • San Diego Orem, UT
    June 23, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    This is a personal matter between Sister Kelly and her bishop. Obviously she is doing this for other reasons - for publicity for her cause and is not interested in truly doing what is right for her as a member. Who else publicizes the fact that the Church is holding a court concerning their conduct as a member? She knows the doctrine and that it will not be changed. She is just trying to create unrest. It is too bad her bishop has to address this issue in prayerful seriousness when she herself is not being genuine.

  • Kaladin Northern, CO
    June 23, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    How can anyone follow (yes "follow") this woman that has set herself up as a prophet? I don't understand.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    June 23, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    To Church Member: President Hinckley went on 60 minutes and with another nightly show but he never stated, "We don't believe in that, and it is now behind us." He basically stated that the Church no longer practices polygamy for living individuals and that an individual can be excommunicated for practicing polygamy. You are trying to mislead others just as Ms. Kelly is misleading those she is in contact with. Bruce R McConkie stated in Mormon Doctrine that African Blacks would never receive the priesthood but President Brigham Young stated from the very beginning that one day they would receive it again and it would be a great blessing to the Church itself. Again in all of your writings you are putting words into the mouths of prophets. Elder McConkie wrote Mormon Doctrine as a member of the Seventy, not an Apostle. He was present when the revelation was received and he stated emphatically there after that he was wrong. However, you fail to mention these things. Kate is not questioning the brethren, she is questioning doctrine and going to the public to garner support is wrong and against every teaching of the Church.

  • jzwillows willows, ca
    June 23, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    Perhaps she should have found out herself about her right to the prieshood as according to Joseph Smith, "God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them..." However it appears she neglected Brigham Young's advice that our “first and foremost duty [is] to seek the Lord until we open the path of communication from God to our own soul.”

  • Socal Coug San Diego, CA
    June 23, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    If you think about it, it's amazing how an increase in attention creates an increase in controversy.
    An increase in media coverage and it's magically a one-side-verses-the-other showdown.
    Reality check: No such controversy exists, just a PR mess.

  • skoup Lake Tapps, WA
    June 23, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    If we are wondering the proper way to question I think we can look to our leaders as an example. This is taken from Chapter 11 of "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith" regarding President Smith and his approach to supporting his priesthood leaders:

    "At one point in Joseph Fielding Smith’s service as an Apostle, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were engaged in an ongoing discussion about a difficult question. Elder Smith had expressed a strong opinion about the issue. One day President Heber J. Grant, who was then the President of the Church, came to Elder Smith’s office. President Grant explained that after prayerfully considering the issue, he had felt impressed to recommend an action that differed from Elder Smith’s views. Immediately Elder Smith voiced his support for President Grant’s decision. He later declared, 'So far as I am concerned, when the President of the Church says the Lord has manifested to him or inspired him to do anything, I would support him fully in that action.'"

    Perfect example of voicing our opinion but being willing to accept and follow the decision of our priesthood leaders.

  • Bountiful Guy Bountiful, UT
    June 23, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    I also read Ms Kelly's website letter to her bishop and also the brief filed by her friend. I had to shake my head several times in dismay of her approach to a disciplinary council of love. In reading the brief, I reflected on the strong words Jesus had towards lawyers. Kate's approach is very sad. She obviously thinks this statement and the brief would help her. I am sad that she just doesn't get it.

    "I will be at this vigil in Salt Lake City. There will also be a vigil held at the church building where the disciplinary council is being held, as well as over 50 vigils in 17 different countries around the world."

    Wow! The above statement from Kate tells it all, doesn't it? It's sad that she wants to lose her eternal family as payment for friends and followers. It's a typical tactic of the very haughty and proud apostates. I'm grateful that the priesthood leaders and women leaders seek for decisions from Christ instead of legal briefs.

  • Socal Coug San Diego, CA
    June 23, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    If she was truly open to a discussion, why wouldn't she meet with the Bishop? Seriously, you're gonna write a letter and leave it at that?
    This should be a red flag to anyone that if you are too close to something, you've already forsaken your humility so much that you cannot listen.
    Frankly, it's sad it's gotten to this point and that so many have been led astray. Utah is the MLM capitol of the world, and this is just another one 'sales pitch' that entices some easily-swayed folks.
    With anything, make sure you take an objective step back to re-evaluate the situation. Oh wait, isn't that what we're supposed to do? Ask questions! But after you ask the question, don't fill in your own answer.

  • Pac_Man Pittsburgh, PA
    June 23, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    "So when the church obviously changes other things (polygamy, blacks and priesthood) because
    of social pressure it doesn't affect your testimony? Many prophets said the church would
    never, ever change these 2 doctrines."

    I am not sure what social pressure you are talking about since Polygamy was acceptable in Utah. Plus polygamy continued after the 1890 Manifesto, they just didn't allow new marriages. I don't know of who said that it would never be changed.

  • pauldevmire slc, UT
    June 23, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    Whatever creates the least amount of negative publicity for the church will be the answer.

  • pauldevmire slc, UT
    June 23, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Why not just give in and put Priesthood Meeting on the internet? Oh, already did that.
    Why not have Elder Oaks devote his whole talk to this group of women in Priesthood Meeting? Oh, already did that.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    June 23, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    "And, more tellingly, I don’t think their approach is even consistent with their proposed aims (i.e. they’re undermining the authority they’re asking to be a part of)."

    Only if you assume the scope of authority those people want has the same contours as the authority you believe the Priesthood entails, including the right never to be publicly challenged or disobeyed.

    If, on the other hand, you understand Priesthood authority as encompassing the right to perform sacred ordinances, to preside in the operation of Church institutions, and to give counsel "by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned," but without trying to maintain power to command outright by virtue of the Priesthood, then there's no contradiction.

    That said, engaging in street theater for the express purpose of bringing pressure on the Church from outside is not consistent with my understanding of my obligation of loyalty to the Church, no matter what my opinions are. Seeking to persuade fellow members is one thing. Enlisting the New York Times is another.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    June 23, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    Say the church did convene and prayed and got an okay. Would those who consider the notion ludicrous leave?

  • TNLDS Signal Mountain, TN
    June 23, 2014 12:29 p.m.

    It is amazing how many Saints she has already lead astray. As I see it she is not contending with the "Church" she is directly contending with Heavenly Father and His doctrine.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 12:29 p.m.


    Again, I get the spirit of what you're saying, but do we really want to excommunicate people who don't agree with everything but who love the Gospel and are trying to figure out stuff. As a Church Leader, I want my congregation to keep coming, keep praying, keep searching, keep planting and watering the seed.

    Taken out of context and read by people who don't understand, you conclude that your comment is from a "cult member" demanding compliance or beheading. The Gospel ain't that...

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 23, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    It apears Kelly wants to be excommunicated from the Church. Elder Oaks gave a great talk in General Conference regarding all questions regarding women and the Priesthood and she obviously rejected those comments and counsel. It is a sad thing when some people become so transfixed on certain things that they willingly remove themselves from the Church including all temple blessings and sealings but this has happened so many times since the early days of the Church. The key confusion for Ms Kelly is how the Church is administered. Having members bring scorn to the Church admist their very public rebellion is an automatic for excommunication...always has been and always will be. Men in the Church are NOT somehow protective of their priesthood and that is the falsehood Ms Kelly is under. Men simply try to do their best with the responsibility they have been given and they do it in a way to bless the lives of their wives and children.

  • Balan South Jordan, Utah
    June 23, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    Regardless of the outcome today, if she persists in badgering the leadership of the Church to get the answer she wants, her actions will ultimately lead to loss of membership. The Church cannot allow individual members to attempt to dictate the direction of the Church.

    Individual members are entitled to personal revelation regarding their individual circumstances, including Church callings for which they have been set apart. They are not entitled to revelation for the Church as a whole, and anyone who attempts to do so is clearly on the path to apostasy.

    The sad thing with this situation is the impact it will have on her husband, kids, parents and extended family - which could impact souls for generations to come. She is not acting in a vacuum where it is only her and the Church. Many, many are going to be impacted by her actions.

  • andy warhol west valley city, UT
    June 23, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    kate kelly will not even be a footnote in history. enough said.

  • true huddersfield, england
    June 23, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    Throughout the scriptures the people of God are reminded to be faithful to the Lord and to those who hold the keys of the priesthood. To be faithful is to be loyal.I might have an opinion about something that is contrary to the accepted policy and express that opinion to those who hold the keys-the leaders of the church.That is okay. However when we seek to influence others with our viewpoint we are going against the keys. Apostacy is horizontal or sideways instead of going vertical to priesthood leaders.

    The acriptures express the following about those who are not faithful and therefore lack loyalty:

    D&C 52:6: “And inasmuch as they are not faithful, they shall be cut off, even as I will, as seemeth me good.”

    D&C 83:3: “And if they are not faithful they shall not have fellowship in the church….”

    D&C 60:3: “And it shall come to pass, if they are not more faithful unto me, it shall be taken away, even that which they have.”

    I know these things to be true

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    rea937 "I feel if you have a Testimony of the Church, this means you have accepted ALL of it's teaching. If you don't have this Testimony, then you should leave. It is that simple."

    I appreciate the spirit of what you are saying. I have a testimony of the Gospel and probably not "a Testimony of the Church". There are no errors in the Gospel of Jesus Christ but as President Uchtdorf pointed out last conferences, "errors are made by Church Leaders". So, it really isn't "that simple".

    There is not an endorsement of KK or John Dehlin in anyway. I'm just saying we need to keep in mind the fallibility of individuals, mortal men and women. Read the recent release on the Priesthood Ban and you'll see what I mean.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    June 23, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    RedShirt says:

    "the church has not changed its belief in polygamy"

    Then why did the current and past prophets go on national news stations and say it is behind us and we don't believe in it anymore. The brethren have been trying to distance themselves from polygamy for decades.

    Why don't they say the church still believes in polygamy and they will practice it in the next life. If they believe in the idea of polygamy then they should stand up for it and be proud of it.

    Something doesn't add up.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 23, 2014 11:59 a.m.


    "I feel if you have a Testimony of the Church, this means you have accepted ALL of it's teaching. If you don't have this Testimony, then you should leave. It is that simple."

    Joseph Smith said "the glory of God is intelligence." The idea still gets lip service these days but that's about all.

  • Kora Cedar Hills, UT
    June 23, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    This is nothing like Joseph Smith praying for the answer. At that time there was not the Church Established on the Earth with Prophet and Apostles. If you believe that Church was restored by Joseph and we do now have those authorities, why keep questioning them? It appears to me that the Prophet has already prayed about it and relayed the answer, and she is not happy with that answer.

    To me this is more like the case of Martin Harris and the resultant lost 116 pages. Harris kept badgering Joseph to keep praying, and Joseph did unfortunately, until he got the answer he wanted, not the Lord's true answer. This is what Kate Kelly is doing. She will not accept an answer until it is the one she wants. Our Prophets have learned from the lost 116 pages to not question the Lord after an answer has been given.

    If you don't trust the leaders than you don't have faith that they are placed there by God. We are not a Church that votes on Doctrine, or changes due to popular opinion, as has been repeated over and over again at recent conferences.

  • LittleStream Carson City, NV
    June 23, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    As hard as I have tried to understand this sister, I cannot. She says she believes in the church, yet she is in total disagreement with the teaching about priesthood keys, supporting the first Presidency. I am stunned that she is willing to give up what her eternity will look like for this position. If she is not willing to follow the churches teachings, and she does so in a media that will pick apart every thing and every opportunity - she has left the church little choice.

  • rea937 west jordan, UT
    June 23, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    I feel if you have a Testimony of the Church, this means you have accepted ALL of it's teaching. If you don't have this Testimony, then you should leave. It is that simple.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    June 23, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    Obviously her bishop has the most insight into this disciplinary process, so much of what is said here is speculation and/or personal opinion. My own view is that I don't see how she can remain a member in good standing while simultaneously continuing to support the Ordain Women movement/cause/website. That might not mean excommunication, perhaps it's another form of formal probation/discipline.

    As a member, the most unsettling thing is how public she is in putting down her bishop and stake president. That really surprised me -- she's doing a great job of running a smear campaign and belittling her church leaders. Makes me glad I've never been a bishop or stake president (talk about walking a fine line).

    One thing I've wondered -- if KK gets her way and gets the priesthood, then what? Is she going to start lobbying for more female bishops? More representation in the Quorums of the Seventy and Twelve? The way I see it, it wouldn't be enough to just have the priesthood. Honestly...where does she see this thing going?

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    This dissenter obviously believes religion is the same as government. That is, if you scream, kick your feet,and/or jump up and down enough, SOMEONE is bound to listen.

    IMHO, the media is doing a great disservice to intelligent viewers/listeners just by airing her views. The issue is between her and her religion - opinions don't matter much!

    BTW - If I start a "blog" voicing my opposition to "planning meetings" (complete with punch and cookies) do you suppose the media will take MY SUGGESTION nationwide?

  • ? SLC, UT
    June 23, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    Asking questions is ok. If I understand the Ordain Women group correctly, they want the president of the church to ask the Lord if women can receive the priesthood. I suppose there is no harm in asking, but there is another event in church history where a question was asked and the reply was no. Martin Harris repeatedly asked the Prophet Joseph Smith to ask the Lord if he could show the manuscript for the Book of Mormon to his family and a few friends. Several times the Lord responded by saying no. Eventually, the Lord relented and gave permission under certain circumstances. Martin Harris broke his promise and as a result, he lost the manuscript. What might the cost be if these women continue to petition President Monson to ask the Lord if women can receive the priesthood? If the Lord wants to allow women to be ordained to the priesthood, He will, but if not, He has His reasons.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 23, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    To "Church member" the church has not changed its belief in Polygamy. The LDS church still believes in polygamy. They entered an agreement with the US government to stop actively teaching it and performing polygamous marriages.

    In 1852 Brigham Young taught that the blacks would receive the priesthood once the priesthood had been restored to all other races. He never said that the blacks would never receive the priesthood. It was only an instance of "not yet".

    The church has never changed its doctrine. The only thing that has changed is people's understanding of the doctrine and myths surrounding the doctrine.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 23, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    As someone who is not LDS I have to admit I find all this very puzzling. This whole episode seems to be taking on a life of its own. This article and the comments on this board would suggest that the real issue here is the appropriateness of Kellie publicly challenging Church doctrine. In other words the issue isn't the doctrine being questioned.

    Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way its playing out across the country (and overseas). Its seen as the Church attempting to enforce inferior Gender roles on the female members of their congregation. To be honest with you, I have no idea what the Church can do under such circumstances. Since someone has successfully changed the story on you, it will look bad no matter what you do.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    If we, as mortal, fallible people think we are smarter than God and think we have access to all knowledge and understanding about eternal principles then we are sadly mistaken. We cannot assume to know the right and wrong to many questions when we do not have all the facts, even if we think we have all the facts. To question is fine, God does not want us to blindly accept everything we're presented with. But to assert that we are in a position to dictate Divine things is just plain silly. We need to understand our limits, do our best to learn and gain knowledge, and accept that God will reveal His will regarding the Church as a whole to His Prophets and then, and only then, we'll be able to move forward. Success will follow as we move forward in faith, accepting the teachings of the Prophets as validated by the Holy Ghost. These are not new concepts yet we sometimes seek to outsmart a proven path to success.

  • Rockyrd Gilbert, AZ
    June 23, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    This is what we often see in our society. A small minority with an ax to grind gets a lot of media attention and sympathy. In any organization the way to effect change is not to embarrass that organization. It doesn't work. If this had been a business issue Ms. Kelly would have been fired long ago. I wish her well. This too shall pass.

  • mattrick78 Cedar City, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:41 a.m.


    I am not sure if there is a parallel between this and what happened in 1978, including the fact that I was a little kid and have no memory of it. But did people back then think that Blacks would NEVER receive the priesthood? It is my understanding it was a wait and see situation. Just wondering.

  • OhMyGravy Taylorsville, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Church Member stated:

    "So when the church obviously changes other things (polygamy, blacks and priesthood) because of social pressure it doesn't affect your testimony? Many prophets said the church would never, ever change these 2 doctrines."

    Please show where the church changed these "because of social pressure" and "Many prophets said the church would never, ever change these 2 doctrines.", because I sure can't find anything.

    Please consider reading the official church policies on these doctrines: "Race and the Priesthood" & "Why did your church previously practice plural marriage (polygamy)?" You might learn something.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    I find it interesting that the only people who really care about this issue are the media and those who hate or are bitter towards the Church.

    If she wants to be a priest or pastor, there are many churches she can turn to. But no, she wants us to change into the church of her making.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    June 23, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    An active and believing member of the LDS Church sustains the Prophet and the 12 Apostles as Prophets Seers and Revelators. They also sustain their local leadership in their callings as well. She is not active and not believing because her local leadership who were called of God to those callings have given her counsel that she has refused to obey. Everyone has their own free agency and she has chosen to disobey her local leadership. In the scriptures when God's children disobeyed the Prophets they received consequences. She is now facing a consequence for her disobedience. Whatever that consequence is that will be justly administered by men who are called of God and acting in accordance with the Doctrine of the LDS Church.

  • rick122948 boise, id
    June 23, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    We are always taught to seek personal revelation that we may know the truth of all things. We also must remember that most of us are not called and sustained as prophets, seers and revelators to receive revelation from the Lord in the guiding of his church here on earth. We belong to Christ's church, not simply a group of people banding together to worship as they believe they should. KK feels that because she thinks women should be ordained to the priesthood, the church should simply change. KK, Christ has never operated that way. Creating contention is Satan's tool, never does it come from the Lord.

  • fever30 Bountiful, UT
    June 23, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    Joseph Smith stated it very well:

    “I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

    Heber C. Kimball, while serving as a counselor to President Brigham Young, reported: “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.

    ‘I will give you a key that will never rust,—if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.’

  • I Bleed Blue Las Vegas, NV
    June 23, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    It all comes down to what the prophet Amos taught. When The Lord reveals his will, it is through the prophet. Otherwise....chaos.

  • wdrobarts Westfield , IN
    June 23, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    This all looks very familiar. There was once a war over the will and wanting of his way, and when he was not given it, he rebelled and took as many with them as would follow, sympathetic to the cause if you will.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    June 23, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    LDS people must wonder had there been DN forums available for comments during 1978 when Black Males received the Priesthood, and during the 1890s when Polygamy was stopped, what the comments would be.
    Most likely they would be just as they appear on this...... quite negative towards any LDS growth or change.
    There are reasons for change in our times.
    Perhaps God is open to gay marriage and women's rights? Perhaps he wants to add new souls to his Church as he did before? Perhaps he wishes to portray his church as accepting questions and pondering answers with his people?
    LDS people on this forum seem to think they know the outcome.
    Anyone wondered if LDS people thought they already knew the outcome way back when?
    My, how they must have been surprised!

  • Tilka PORTLAND, OR
    June 23, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    If you are a faithful member you believe that the President of the church is led by God. If you believe the President of the church is wrong regarding women to holding the Priesthood doesn't that mean you don't believe he is led by God? If you don't believe he is led by God then don't you then have a disbelief in the church and the validity of the Priesthood? So why do you want the Priesthood?

    Another point, if you are going to say the President of the church is not being led by God and you are going to actively promote this belief, then you know that your membership will ultimately be taken away. She has to know this and is trying to drag this process out for publicity including releasing personal letters from the church regarding her status.

    Finally, she knows that her activity will draw people away from the church. My good friend has a daughter in law who asked to be removed from the roles of the church because of her support for Ms. Kelly.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    June 23, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    jskains says:

    "The irony is that if the Church changed and ordained women, many including myself would lose faith. It would prove the Church to be more of a social club than run by God."

    So when the church obviously changes other things (polygamy, blacks and priesthood) because of social pressure it doesn't affect your testimony? Many prophets said the church would never, ever change these 2 doctrines.

    I think the church will eventually allow women to hold the priesthood in the next 30 years. The question is, will members say that it was never doctrine that women couldn't hold the priesthood. They will say it was just a policy.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    June 23, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    Maybe I missed it, but when did KK ever say something to the effect of "I could be of greater service to others if I held the Priesthood?"

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    June 23, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    "Decisions being made with no input?" If you actually believe the doctrine--That Jesus is the head of the church, and He talks to His prophet on earth; and that God is no respecter of persons--then you have all the input you want. If you truly believe God speaks to the prophet, then pray to God and get Him to change His mind. He will tell His prophet. His prophet cannot change, until God says so. If, that is, you are a believing Mormon.

    On the other hand, if you think that political campaigns, public demonstrations, etc are effective and efficient ways of changing the doctrine.... then perhaps you don't believe the doctrine (I mean, is God going to be swayed by a letter writing campaign?). In which case, why do you want the Priesthood? It has no value anyway. Except as a measure of authority. And if you believe that the Priesthood is the right to rule, then you go against all the doctrine of the Priesthood as an instrument of service--that has been taught since the beginning. In which case, even if women had the priesthood, you wouldn't be worthy to hold it.

  • donn layton, UT
    June 23, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    RE: Cinci Man, “In my view, disciplinary councils work wonders when the counseled individual chooses to recognize error”True,

    ” should earnestly 'Contend for the faith' which was once delivered unto the saints”(Jude 1:3)

    Jude is telling us that there will be a constant fight against false teaching and that people should take it so seriously that we “agonize” over the fight in which we are engaged. Jude makes it clear that every Christian is called to this fight, not just church leaders, so it is critical that all believers sharpen their discernment skills so that they can recognize and prevent apostasy in their midst.

    “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves” (2 Peter 2:1). i.e..,
    In A.D. 325, the Council of Nicea, the issue of Arius . He denied the Trinity and was excommunicated.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    If Kate Kelly were talking about the oppression of women in the Islamic World or even in the Polygamous Community in our own back yard we'd all be saying to her "go girl." But, she's asking questions about our own Mormon culture/religion and in doing so has not only opened up criticism to herself but has shown some of the "flaws" we have.

    Saying we have a right to question privately but we can't really do it publicly shows there is no real way to address any problem. If the only real discussion of issues where policy can be changed is behind closed doors by a small group of men, we don't have any input. If the only prayers answered are by that same group of men and not to anyone questioning there is no chance of change. I wonder if continuing revelation and change is governed by that same group of men do we really have real and vibrant continuing revelation or just the same old justifications for any new issue. We look much more Islamic, stuck in the past, than we look modern lead by a living prophet.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    Suburbs of SLC
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    You said "Moreover, when someone has made it clear they are an active, believing member of the church, I would hope church leaders would be very slow to remove them, even if they dislike something they have done. If you don't like what she stands for, seek to persuade her of the fallacy of her actions - and do so with love and long-suffering, as the D&C commands. Even those who think she is wrong should acknowledge that nothing about this has been handled with love, and it certainly hasn't been handled with long-suffering".

    Wow, how shallow it is to say that someone is..."a believing member of the church" when their actions pointedly demonstrate they are in open rebellion against the church. Obviously, Kate's church leaders have dealt with this matter in a spirit of love and long-suffering. They must now act responsibly to truth and to protect the rights of the church and the rights of members who find Kate's actions to be the very essence of Apostacy!

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 23, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    Kate Kelly is not naïve about her prospects for effecting change to any Church policy. She knows she is up against a Church structure with a high priority on asserting its authority. That will probably override all else. But I have to admire the way she is sticking to her principles in the face of such enormous pressure.

  • TilleySue South Weber, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    I read her letter and her friend's letter. The former read like a brief bio of her life in the church - with pictures?! No effort was made in trying to see where she may be in error,only that she's had a good run and will continue to be defiant. The latter was written by a semi-intelligent person trying to be actually intelligent. It was like she was trying to find every little "out" to get her friend out of a speeding ticket or something. This is an ecclesiastical matter, in which her priesthood leaders are trying to determine her heart and her future course with the church. If KK and her friend were spiritually-minded in this matter, the letters would speak more to the place of her soul,not to potential "legal" technicalities, and they would not have been sent to the press. I found both letters to be off-the-mark and juevenile.

  • Virginia Reader Ashburn, VA
    June 23, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    This whole issue has boggled me from the beginning. It would be one thing to humbly ask for the authority of the Priesthood for the benefit of blessing the lives of others. That is a righteous question to ask the Lord. But it's another thing to couple it with "equal rights of women." The idea of wanting the Priesthood because you feel you are not equal to men makes it clear that KK and her followers do not understand the Priesthood and the purposes of God. They are truly being deceived. If she was to separate the two issues, that would be another matter. But recruiting others to believe in false doctrine is serious.

    And to be excommunicated from the church is not necessarily a bad thing. God is a God of justice, and laws must be carried out. The greater love comes from not giving in to every demand, but by helping an individual realize that the will of God always surpasses ours. It's as simple as a parent helping a child understand this. It just takes faith on our part and an understanding of the Atonement.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    Having grown up in a democracy minded environment it is natural that people bring their "from the ground up" governing philosophy to their worship practices. Hence the myriad of protestant faiths and their elected governing bodies who respond to the membership's wishes as they pertain to ordination and doctrinal practices.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never espoused to be a democracy, but a kingdom. Hence members are voluntarily subject to a Heavenly King with a vice-regent and ministers, if you will, in mortality. It follows that doctrine comes from the top down.

    Members may have opinions on a variety of issues and doctrines but to openly promote policy and practices that are contrary to established doctrine needs to be called to account, repentance and penitence.

    It is the right and duty of any organization to maintain the doctrine and order it espouses and to severe the bonds that united the body to the unrepentant rebel.

    This too, shall pass away.

    The media circus will pause, briefly, for this dog and pony show and once milked for all it's worth will move on to the next event.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    People usually end up getting what they are looking for. The Gospel is about submitting our will to God and Christ, just as Christ submitted His will. It is also about service, not crusading to be a leader. Christ chose His leaders, they didn't campaign for the job.

  • Malihini Northern, UT
    June 23, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    Nobody knows the circumstances of this situation. You may think you do because you've read Katy's letter or you know how church disciplinary councils work, but if you really did, you would know that this is a matter between the local ecclesiastical leaders and the Kelly family. It is a personal matter that should be handled there and not sensationalized in the press.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    June 23, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." Isaiah 14:13 - 15

    If this is a private battle, it should be dealt with privately. Ms. Kelly's commando assault has been deployed before by others and has always failed miserably.

    Historically it has been the apostates that caused the most severe difficulties for the church. Think of all the trials and persecutions Joseph Smith endured because of the opinions and actions of disgruntled former associates. I don't have a full understanding of the power and grandeur of the priesthood and stand in awe of it. I am also one of the 90% of women polled that support God's way of administering His church. More responsibility? I already have enough to do. I hope Ms. Kelly finds her way back as many have.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 23, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    Through most of her letter, Ms. Kelly seems quite sincere. But her hard refusal to even consider her Stake President's counsel stand out in stark contrast to the rest.

    Ultimately, I wish her well. But the Bishop needs to decide if this is a case of apostasy and, if so, deal with it as he feels inspired to do.

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    June 23, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    Having the spirit of contention is not Christ-like behavior.

    Interesting how her words contradict her actions in many instances.

    I only hope she doesn't cause others to let go of the iron rod, but it sounds like she already has.

    For those who believe even partially what she asserts, you need to study how the Church is organized and works. Not all knowledge is given at once. Things do change, but on God's schedule, not hers.

    The bottom line is this...instead of raising her questions privately and getting answers privately, she has decided to try and embarrass the Church to force change, and probably has lead others away from the truth.

    Shame on her.

  • Jared NotInMiami, FL
    June 23, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    @jskains "The irony is that if the Church changed and ordained women, many including myself would lose faith. It would prove the Church to be more of a social club than run by God."

    This is a double standard. I'm assuming you criticize OW's actions for not sustaining the prophet and apostles; yet you turn around and state that should the prophet announce the ordination of women to priesthood offices, you'd "lose faith". Why is it wrong for OW to be in the wrong but not you should there be doctrinal changes. The Church is founded on the principle of continuing revelation. This doesn't mean there is no consistency, it just means that we need to recognize that even doctrines can change as we grow in understanding (these changes always come from the prophet though so anyone advocating changes outside the core councils of the church are in the wrong). There are core doctrines that will not change but many others can (e.g., Word of Wisdom prohibitions of alcohol).

  • jzwillows willows, ca
    June 23, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    The ludicrous of this is that the Church is more than fair to woman - stretching so far as defining in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism "follow the brethren as including following the female leadership also. The Church teaches women can become prophetesses-from December 1980 Ensign article by Daniel H. Ludlow, director of teacher support services, Church Educational System: In general, this term seems to be used in the Bible to describe a woman who had a special gift of prophecy or foretelling or to show that a certain woman had an abundance of the Spirit in understanding or teaching the gospel plan. Of course, it is possible that some women were prophetesses in both senses of the word.

    June 23, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    There are many that because the are learned, they think they are wise.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    June 23, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    To quote for the OW website:
    "As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood." Ms. Kelly. This is not asking a question seeking for an answer from God.

    In my view, disciplinary councils work wonders when the counseled individual chooses to recognize error, become humble, and repent. It may take years and it may never come. But something must be done to convey the answer to the question that is not included in the OW mission statement above. We are taught that when we petition God with questions, we must listen for the answers. OW shows no signs of listening.

    I know of a man who allowed himself to leave the church through apostasy and excommunication because of a verse he read in the Bible. Years later, after losing his family and temple blessings, he came back to the church when he found the answer to his question later in the same Bible book. He couldn't believe his own foolishness. And it's all because he wasn't listening. I long for the day when Ms. Kelly embraces listening.

  • Lolly Lehi, UT
    June 23, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    Just like all of the others in the past who have done similar things by taking their issues to the public and been excommunicated, their names were soon forgotten. They were like dust in the wind. A person who "loves" the Church doesn't disregard a plea by the President of the Church to not come on Church grounds during Conference. She is an apostate and those following are being misled by her actions.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    June 23, 2014 7:16 a.m.

    I wonder if Sister Kelly has read D&C 121: 34-41 lately. When she talks about "gender inequality" in the church, I recall that the last sentence of verse 37, "Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man." That's right after it mentions the famous unrighteous dominion thing. If she wants equality then she needs to be willing to suffer the eternal consequences that are right now saved for men only when we exercise unrighteous dominion.

    She may feel a lot more comfortable in the Community of Christ, eh?

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    June 23, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    This is not about equality. This is about self-aggrandizement. If Ms. Kelly truly loved the church she should have taken her questions up with God privately; not in the public forum. Questioning has never been a problem within the church, but when you try to dictate your will publicly and lead others in your crusade....this is apostasy. As a life-long member of the church, it saddens me to see some members bent on "change". It saddens me more to see media coverage on this subject when there are more important matters that should be focused on.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    June 23, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    It's so easy to see Sonja Johnson all over again. I sincerely hope that the brethren involved in this counsel will be able to render a decision that is inspired of God that considers the salvation of souls, the protection of the victims of her movement, and protects the integrity of the Church. Contrary to what many believe, I know that this process will be carried out with the highest level of Christ-like love for all. There will be no vengeance. There will be no malice. Ms. Kelly has demonstrated her disregard for the very priesthood she seeks. How sad and telling is that? One cannot read the stores of early church members who sought to impose their personal agenda on the direction of the church without seeing many parallels in the OW movement. I'm so grateful for church members leaders who see this what what it is. I'm truly sad when the path of repentance and humility are not embraced by members of Christ's Church. We all need those principles in our lives. But pride can place such a huge barrier upon us.

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    June 23, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    @Tuffy Parker

    Harm? She's trying to mix things up for a church corporation that already peaked. The issue now has national attention and deserves more than a simple gloss over and could be used as a platform to further modernize the church. We've seen a revision of the reason behind why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. Why not "consult" with God and see if progressive women can likewise hold the priesthood and reap the benefits?

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    June 23, 2014 6:35 a.m.

    I have been to her website.
    She has clearly lost her way. She is demanding the priesthood...then in the next sentence asking the prophet to pray about it.
    What makes her think he hasn't?
    She (along with the rest of us) HAS been given an answer. Elder Oaks detailed it quite nicely in the April Priesthood Session, broadcast in real time to the world.
    There have been other talks and articles given to explain the position of the Lord's Church on women and the priesthood.
    She wants it her way. She is convinced that the Brethren aren't listening. She cannot accept that she already has her answer.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    June 23, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    She already knows what the decision will be. Neither man nor woman can change God's law no matter how much they want it to happen. These disciplinary courts are of love and compassion. Thanks to the Deseret News for the great article on June 21st, "How LDS Church Disciplinary Councils Work to Improve Lives."

    Her request is a demand. God will not be mocked. Too bad she couldn't make an appearance since this seems to be so important to her.

    Tuffy Parker: Thanks for your strong words. I agree completely!

  • atrulson cohoes, NY
    June 23, 2014 6:19 a.m.

    Is this the beginning of another Mormon splinter sect?

  • deseret pete robertson, Wy
    June 23, 2014 6:18 a.m.

    Apparently she has little understanding of church doctrine and how the lord reveals his will through a prophet.We are free to believe what we want but when someone begins to push their agenda and recruit others to their apostate ideas they are on the road to apostasy and will be held accountable through a disciplinary council and her membership in the church may be terminated.I hope she can realize that the church is not run or decisions made by the number of protests organized.Those who support her may well find themselves on the road to apostasy if they continue to defend her actions and advocate her belief in public.

  • The Dixie Kid Saint George, UT
    June 23, 2014 6:16 a.m.

    KK: Please start your own church already.

  • Bradley jennings Glendora, CA
    June 23, 2014 6:08 a.m.

    If anyone is at odds with the LDS church, they are at odds with God.

    I truly believe that!

  • K Mchenry, IL
    June 23, 2014 6:07 a.m.

    I do not understand. I thought the church was about personal revelation? I don't believe she is doing it for notoriety. The whole reason there is a LDS church is a 14 year old boy could not wrap his head around the current churches and practices of his day. There is a difference in publicly stating the LDS ordains women and asking the LDS to ordain women. I don't see a harm for the second.

    On the other hand perhaps she should change her affiliation to Community of Christ? Same scriptures, different practice in this regard.

  • jskains Orem, UT
    June 23, 2014 5:48 a.m.

    The irony is that if the Church changed and ordained women, many including myself would lose faith. It would prove the Church to be more of a social club than run by God.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 23, 2014 5:36 a.m.

    She is clearly determined to push the Church to the point that they have no choice but to excommunicate her. She claims she wants an answer. She has been given an answer. She also claims she won't be happy until she gets ordained. Since that's not going to happen, she will obviously never be happy inside the Church. She needs to find a church that agrees with her and makes decisions based on political pressure NOT the will of God.

    I'm sorry for her and her family that she has made choices that have placed her in this situation. In the end she will find no happiness or comfort from it.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    June 23, 2014 4:48 a.m.

    I have the exact same problem with Kate and some of her followers that they claim to have with leaders in the church - respect for differing ideas and opinions. I am adamant on treating everyone with respect and believe women have absolutely as much intellect and capability as men (more so in my case!). But I have been sorely disappointed by the lack of respect and dignity that some of her followers have begun to heap on anyone who disagrees with them. We've gone from intelligent discussion to ridicule of a wide variety of church talks, articles, points in the leadership manuals, etc. I hear them say one thing about "respect" and then acting in quite another.

    And it's quite disingenuous to act like the LDS church is the only organization on the planet that asks dissent building people to leave. You can blog and write letters to the CEO all you want. But with most corporations if you set up your own rules of engagement, org chart, leadership and sales team and start selling their products a different way outside of the established protocol, they will fire you.

  • mountain man Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 2:57 a.m.

    As i read her 4 page epistle to her bishop i was touched by her fond memories of growing up in the church.
    I did not get the impression that she really believes in the church. It seemed like a letter saying goodbye to that chapter in her life.
    I dont mind your questions but i do mind your tactics. I hope if your are excommunicated that you can leave this behind and not try to be a martyre. But my instincts tell me otherwise.

  • mattrick78 Cedar City, UT
    June 23, 2014 2:21 a.m.

    Part of being in the Church is accepting (even as a male) that you are not ordained to whatever office you feel is owed you.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    June 23, 2014 2:11 a.m.

    This whole situation bothers me. I find Kate Kelly's statements disingenuous and her organization's militancy off-putting. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to hold priesthood if that priesthood would be subject to the whims of every fringe group who comes knocking. But if it's true that no one with ecclesiastical stewardship over her has sat down with her to hear her out and try to feel her pain, that seems like a failure on the part of her leaders. And the fact that her leaders didn't initiate any disciplinary action until after she moved away casts doubt on the fairness and legitimacy of the process. The whole situation is harmful to the church as a whole and to individual members, whether they were involved with Ordain Women or not. Everybody loses here.

  • p3406 Salt Lake, UT
    June 23, 2014 1:00 a.m.

    I wonder if Kelly has 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 her and her band of followers.

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    June 23, 2014 1:00 a.m.

    This is what boggles my mind. If I were unhappy with a organization that I was a part of and disagreed with. That made me unhappy why would I want to belong to it? This person seams to me to be very unhappy with the church and want it to change to fit her ideas. Sorry that is not how things work. Want to belong to a organization? you agree to the rules set forth. the same is true to the doctrine of the church. don't agree to it your welcome to leave. you have your free will. there are many other churches out there that will fit your ideology.

  • MurrayGuy Murray, UT
    June 23, 2014 12:02 a.m.

    Ignore it, she wants an audience.

  • Suburbs of SLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 22, 2014 11:30 p.m.

    Some 1,000 letters were forwarded to Kelly's bishop by individual members of the church expressing the ways in which Ordain Women had either strengthened their testimonies or helped them feel safe in an environment in which they no longer felt safe. So I would not be so quick to say she has caused harm to herself or others. For many, she has been a great comfort.

    Moreover, when someone has made it clear they are an active, believing member of the church, I would hope church leaders would be very slow to remove them, even if they dislike something they have done. If you don't like what she stands for, seek to persuade her of the fallacy of her actions - and do so with love and long-suffering, as the D&C commands. Even those who think she is wrong should acknowledge that nothing about this has been handled with love, and it certainly hasn't been handled with long-suffering.

  • lib1 Provo, UT
    June 22, 2014 11:27 p.m.

    Is being "true to [your] authentic self" something that Latter-day Saints should strive for? What does that even mean, anyway? And what do you do if your "authentic self" is leading you to raise opposition and dissatisfaction against the church you profess to love?

    Personally, I think it is more important to be true to The Lord and his church than to be true to oneself. I recall a line from C.S. Lewis' novel, The Great Divorce, where nearly all the souls who choose hell over Heaven say, "At least we were true to ourselves."