Leaderboard

Canonized scripture, Conference sermon specifically tailored to the individuals raising the issue, united statement of the 1st Pres/Q12--In the words of an esteemed (former) secretary of state, "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Suzie, I daresay you are familiar with enough Church history to know that conformance with some sort of legal code doesn't immunize one from excommunication. Nor, IMHO, should it. If the Holy Ghost tells a bishop or stake president that a Church member's heart is not right before the Lord, I don't think that bishop/stake president's hands should be tied in perpetuity while the member keeps the council bogged down in legal procedures. There should be fair play and adequate notice; sure. But this business of Kate Kelly acting like she has absolutely no idea why she was excommunicated is just silly. Babylon may buy it, and the sympathetic LDS intelligentsia may split hairs over it; but to most rank-and-file Mormons it's pretty clear cut: she demanded something that the Church leadership said the Lord was unwilling to give, and she wouldn't take "no" for an answer and tried to shame the leadership into giving her what she wanted anyways. FWIW--McKay did inquire of the Lord re the blacks and priesthood issue, and did get an answer (a negative one). But he did not formally announce that answer. Had he done so, the Church membership could have gotten even more entrenched in the status quo. Rather, he continued working quietly to prepare the Church for the "long promised day". Let me ask you this, Suzie--if Monson did get an answer, and it was a "no"--are you sure you want that answer presented to a solemn assembly and canonized as Official Declaration 3? IMHO, those who want to keep female ordination on the table as a long-term option should be grateful for the ambiguity. The Church hasn't stopped the dialogue here; they've merely stated that the apostles will contribute to it on their own (the Lord's?) terms. Those terms apparently do not involve giving Kate Kelly a photo-op or otherwise implicitly suggesting that someone can shout their way into the council room of the First Presidency. They shouldn't have to, MoE. The Church records are completely devoid of any record of a female ever being ordained to one of the four offices of the Aaronic Priesthood or five offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and OW knows it. It is they who are deliberately creating murky waters with the ambiguous use of the word "ordain" and the red herring statements about priestesshood made to the Nauvoo Relief Society. The LDS leadership shouldn't have to address that blatant lie, and frankly I think I prefer it in general when apostles don't get into the business of apologetics or historical analysis.

Awesome news. WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby Monday morning. The court said the government can't require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage. The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=30471147&nid=148&title=supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-hobby-lobby-&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory

My understanding is that she wasn't preaching any false doctrine. I haven't seen anything on the OW website that was false doctrine. There is a statement about how a person must hold an office in the Priesthood in order to gain salvation, which is clearly false doctrine. But, a statement like that alone is nothing compared to the Adam-God theory, which came from a prophet, seer, and revelator, and has since been rebuked in later times. It is also nothing compared to The Seer, by Orson Pratt, an apostle, which is chalk full of false doctrine. So much so that my mission president didn't let us read it. Neither President Young nor Elder Pratt were ever excommunicated. My point here is not to be contentious, but rather to point out that I think both Suzie and Pam are right: There was little-to-no false doctrine being preached, but this wasn't so much the driving rationale behind excommunicating her. All of what I have said is according to my current udnerstanding, though. I agree with Suzie on this about a dogmatic, end-of-discussion does not lead to meaningful dialogue and proper conflict resolution. What I think of the matter is irrelevant per my lack of ecclesiastical authority. But, I can see plausible alternatives to dealing with this. Whether or not they were utilized, who knows? I only know that that church warned her to cease and desist, she didn't, more warnings were given, and a consequence transpired. (Philadelphia Eagles) As mentioned above, I believe her actions were more the issue. I'm sympathetic to Kate's concerns and even I struggle with her trying to interrupt General Conference... twice. However, from what I can tell from reading numerous profiles on OW, I get the impression that Kate didn't really "proselytize" her beliefs. The men and women who related to her already shared those beliefs, as evidenced by many of them claiming that they had felt that way their whole lives. But, that's just my guess. This is a notion I can't deny or escape in my own private ponderings. To my knowledge, no statement has been made explicitly stating, "We prayed and asked Heavenly Father if women should have the priesthood and He said, 'No.'" Please, don't misunderstand me: I am not saying anything more than just that I am not aware of any such statement and that that fact is inescapable during my private ponderings. Beyond that, I'm trying to KISS. According to some research shown to me by some of my friends in the church, upwards of 90% of the women in the church agree with these sentiments in their entirety and completeness. I agree that we shouldn't be demanding of the Prophet. However, the scriptures are filled with instances of the fold going to prophet and asking him to ask Heavenly Father for an answer. I just taught my 10-11 year old primary class the story of the brass serpant yesterday. The Israelites asked Moses to inquire of the Lord and he did. Many of Joseph Smith's revelations came from questions being asked of him by the members. So, I do believe there is a balance there. And, I really don't think anyone on these forums disagrees with that. I think most people just generally have a very different notion of where that balance is. Which is fine. I think many of us have this thought enter our minds at one time or another, regardless of what we choose to do about it. I have attended psychotherapy conferences in Utah where the presenting psycholgists talk briefly about the many members who have stated in therapy that they feel lost, have more questions than answers, and being told, "Read the scriptures and pray about it," helps them through such moments but doesn't really make the problem go away. I talk to other Mormon therapists who have experienced this many times. My point is not that there is a real problem here. I am not saying that at all. Rather, I am just saying that there is a great many, good and faithful, church-attending members who can relate to this. Many times, I'm one of them.

I think President Hinckley said it as plainly as it can be said. This is on mormon.org: Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said: “Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program. http://www.mormon.org/faq/women-in-the-church If the prophet takes it to prayer and inquires of the Lord and the Lord tells him no through personal revelation...does it have to be written down or some kind of scripture? Ir we truly believe that President Hinckley or President Monson or any of those great men before them aren't prophets and don't receive answers to their prayers...then...I don't know. The why's of so many things hasn't been revealed to us. Sometimes we have to be satisfied and have faith that we'll have answers in due time. Right now I'm satisfied with what President Hinckley said..."The Lord has put it that way."

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/june-first-presidency-statement?lang=eng&cid=facebook-shared The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Office of the First Presidency47 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 June 28, 2014 In God's plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women. Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices. All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God. We express profound gratitude for the millions of Latter-day Saint women and men who willingly and effectively serve God and His children. Because of their faith and service, they have discovered that the Church is a place of spiritual nourishment and growth. We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them. Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine. The Council of The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

That's a red herring, Folk. In the bible, MOST of the time the followers of God were stiff-necked. Asking the prophet to pray about something isn't wrong. People asked Joseph Smith all the time for everything from receiving the Priesthood(Which was granted) to Oliver Cowdery(Which was not quite so happy an occasion). There is nothing wrong with wanting the Priesthood. If asked in the right spirit, it's a righteous desire. Otherwise, Joseph Smith would never have been granted it.

I'll add my thoughts to this. I agree with the second half. I don't agree with the "safe-side" part of OW's prior efforts. The moment they put up a website and recruited they were on dangerous grounds. Asking questions is fine. Subtly turning your questions into preaching under the guise of "we're just asking" is not. Publicly asking questions as a political movement is not. I'll use Zeezrom as an example. He asked questions. That was his method. In response Amulek called him a child of hell and a liar, because he knew that the agenda behind the questions was crafty evil. Using questions to push an agenda may be a subtle work around in an, "I'm not apostatizing" way, but leading people away from gospel truths is leading people away, whatever the method be. If question asking is the method it is not justification against apostasy.

It would seem that if the Church were more interested in appearance, they would have done more dialogue. Now, I would not have been opposed to a more complex dialogue between the OW and the Church. Could they have given more specific answers to Kelly's questions? Sure. But it also seems that could possibly end up in a toddler conversation of eternal "Why?"

Agreed. I guess you must have been "CMC" that they're talking about. I know we've had our differences but I agree with you here. Their method is not the way. To be fair, the "idiot" comments and making fun is more the posters, which anyone can be, but if they're going to censor you and not censor the "what an idiot" comments, it pretty clearly shows what they're supporting. You and I don't agree on the OW issues. But Kate Kelly is a child of God and deserves our love and compassion, not belittlement and hate.

Out of curiosity I visited OWE, and despite their preface claiming to expose the false teachings of Ordain Women, I feel it is a page dedicated to slamming Kate Kelly and belittling her supporters. There are plenty of people that don't agree with Kate Kelly and Ordain Women, my parents and most of my family feel this way, but none of them are feeding into this vicious cycle of belittlement. I think the OWE page harbours a lot of hate.

Ordain Women Exposed.

I would love if Monson comes straightforward and says they prayed about it and they got "X" answer but it didn't happen (just yet). I understand your points JAG, and you know I respect you a lot and your views but I disagree in your overall view with how this issue was handled. I believe Kelly's excommunication could have been avoided if the Church engaged in a proper dialogue with her and OW. As a sister in the Gospel, I feel very sad for her and her entirely family and it frustrates me, angers me and saddens me all at the same time that there are groups such as OWE who are using this opportunity to attack Kelly and say horrible things that I believe a Latter-Day Saint should never say to someone going through an excommunication process. And then we wonder where do we get the "holier than thou" perception from. We have a lot of bullies in our midst.

Where is the Applause button.....lol

The thing is, and the "official" policy, is that we don't know, we can't know, and we should stop arguing about it. Of course we can view it certain ways and have discussion. It is interesting. Your personality leads you to see it the way you do and to resolve these issues a certain way. My personality leads me differently. Neither of us are likely right. That being said, I'll respond to a few of your ideas: 1. A phrase such as "raining cats and dogs" does not strike me as equivalent to Biblical writings. 2. We know that our mortal state is a condition of the fall. Equating that with justice isn't exactly correct though. That's like saying if I make my kid go out and garden to teach him work and responsibility that I'm metering out justice. We are sent to earth to be tested and to learn and grow. It's not measured justice for Adam and Eve's choice. But it is a "result" of Adam and Eve's choice. 3. As stated, this is only guesswork, but I've heard it postulated that the earth was created somewhere else (with a different sun), then placed here whereupon it was giving it's days, etc., via it's relationship to the sun and moon. Regardless, I find the need to explain things according to our understanding of science unfortunate. The Lord's ways are not ours. Take Jesus healing a man's blindness by spitting in the mud, placing it on his eyes, and then having him wash in a dirty pool. That sure doesn't fit with anything we know about science. Are we to believe this was allegorical too. What "really" must have happened is laser surgery? Just some thoughts I had.

To start with I have problems with the literal understanding of anything that is translated – especially poetry. We have many saying common to everyday modern English that do not translate well to other languages and vise versa. For example: it is raining cats and dogs, giving 110%, I have not been there in a blue moon and I have a bone to pick with you. I also have a problem with justice metered out to anyone that is not directly involved in some way. I see no reason for the conditions of the fall to determine someone’s mortal state just because they were or are a descendent of Adam and Eve. I can understand justice for those having a mortal existence based on their choices in a pre-existence but not for the choices of their parents. Every explanation I have ever heard concerning the Genesis creation comes with a lot of explanation that is not found anywhere in scripture or in any historical record of past interpretations. There have been a lot of changes since Galileo concerning the interpretation of scripture in light of scientific discoveries. But I do not know of any changes in scientific discoveries based on scripture interpretation. If you can explain why Genesis has trees producing fruit and grass producing seeds on earth (creation day 3) before there was a sun or moon associated with earth (creation day 4) – then I would be more inclined to go with you concerning literal interpretations. I am most interested in any understanding you can bring to the table concerning death on earth prior to the fall. Seminary gives an interesting explanation – but that seem to be something I have not been able to rhetorical (empirically) make any sense of

Doesn't the fact she didn't attend the disciplinary council itself demonstrate a lack of faith and perhaps even contempt for the authority of the Church? Her actions certainly didn't match her claims of faith. If it's Priesthood authority she truly sought it seemed counteractive to simultaneously repudiate it.

With our power lawyers? Are you kidding me?

All right. Point by point: 1) Murmuring against the prophet is a bad idea. Sure. But asking questions is not. You later go on to point this out. This isn't what you had said - You had said that questioning the prophet is a problem. What you had done prior to this was a red herring. Now you're engaging in moving the goal-posts which is another form of fallacy entirely. 2) There may have been some who thought this was about lifting up the Prophets above them and sought to get the Priesthood for worldly gain as per Numbers 16:3 Would you say that is the majority? Because I would suggest it's best to leave that decision to God. To put to you the same kind of argument you put to MOE, If you truly trust the leadership, you don't need to explain why they made the decision they did. You don't know that - Only their Priesthood leaders do, and that's the way it should be.You don't know their hearts, I don't know their hearts. It's a tragedy whenever anyone has to be excommunicated. The only thing we can do is state that they were wrong and that we love them.

My though in response to this: D&C 58 26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. 27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; 28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. 29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

Just to be clear since my name came up. I never said that she wasn't teaching false doctrine.

I find this pretty insulting. My faith in Christ is thriving and unchallenged. My faith in temporal organizations is unchanged...they often suck. Welcome to humanity. But please stop assuming that frustration with how public affairs are handled is synonymous with a crisis or trial of faith. That's one of those things I can't stand about mormons.

I can see that. I must admit, I have gone back and forth on the notion myself. I see a logical train of thought that could lead to the speculation that our world is made from older worlds but I completely agree with you that aside from that, there isn't anything remotely concrete to support it. My mission president used to tell us that it very well may have been 2,000,000,000 years that Adam and Eve were in there. I think about him saying that when I read about Laurasia, Pangea, and other supercontinents. It's fun to think about. :)

Why would a natural history museum need to have a religious/spiritual feel to it? M.

Preface: I know things tend to be on a continuum and we cannot, off the cuff, give strong percentages to the whole of the populous without data. There has been nonviolence proponents such as Mahatma Gandhi so violence is not the only reality on the table. With regard to violence, I wonder... What is the main root of violence? (where does it come from?) Is it mostly done over self-interest (selfishness)? How much is caused by genetics? How much is cultural? Why are males more violent than females? What keeps people from violence? What is the biological factors of violence? What is the moral psychology involved in the process and how do we chose to dismiss obligations we claim to follow? What would it take to have less violence? Is it just sin? Is it mostly about socioeconomic status? Is it mostly about educational level?

Did you know that is it not uncommon for a married partner to feel an attraction to someone not their spouse. The answer is the same no matter what your gender attraction is... You go into full on resistance and remember your spouse and kids..

I agree with Backroads. Even though Kelly went on record pretty early saying she'd never settle for anything less than ordination, OW was theoretically on the "safe side" of the line as long as they stuck to their official aims ("just ask! That's all we want!") and left some plausible deniability regarding Kelly's personal comments at FMH, TribTalk, MormonStories, and elsewhere. (I mean, I thought it was bunk, and I didn't think very highly of it; but I could understand why OW's antics up through the last general conference might not be seen as discipline-worthy). IMHO, the game-changer wasn't the marches on Temple Square. It wasn't even that Kelly continued to address the issue publicly after Elder Oaks' talk in the last priesthood session. The game-changer was those six discussions that OW began producing. They represent a formal change not only in objective, but in tone ("Patriarchy Bingo" as a discussion activity? Really?). With all due respect, Suzie (and you should know, that's quite a lot!)--what makes you think we aren't asking questions? Kelly and many of her supporters seem to teach that the process of public questioning--which is eerily similar to naked politicking--is somehow more legitimate than private questioning involving prayer, scripture study, conversations with local leadership, occasional discreet letters to general authorities, and revelation. For a hundred and eighty four years (excepting only, perhaps, that relatively anarchic first half-decade in the Kirtland period), the Church has uniformly taught the latter method as the most efficacious way to obtain further light and knowledge--not only from the Church, but from God Himself. Now OW bursts onto the scene telling us that everything we know about how to commune with God and obtain divine truth is invalid--or at least, inferior to a process that looks an awful lot like secularist electioneering. We're supposed to subjugate our revelation and our life experience, to theirs; and treat the LDS leadership--whom many of us have never, ever regretted following--with even more skepticism and suspicion than we treat demonstrably corrupt politicians, entertainers, and/or academics. Et tu is, of course, a logical fallacy--except when one side tries to unilaterally claim the moral high ground, which OW has been trying to do lately. And the simple fact, Suzie, is that OW holds at least as much contempt for orthodox Mormons, as orthodox Mormons hold for it.

I agree with this. However, there is a big difference between asking for specifics on whether or not an answer was received and the smear campaign she created against the Church.

It's worth noting that the Senate felt like there was some merit to interpreting the Constitution the way that Obama did. It was for that exact reason that they called in the pro-forma sessions every three days. So if you're going to oust President Obama for applying an ill-formed interpretation of the Constitution, you better oust the Senate leaderships as well (not that I'm opposed to that)

I'm sorry, but the church leadership has left far more unanswered questions than they have answered. To me, it feels like they have gone into the business of creating ambiguity. And I'm frustrated by it. I find it frustrating that they won't engage in the simplest discussions. They could have taken a lot of wind out of OW movement by stating something as simple as "we do not believe the the word 'ordain' as used in 1838 is equivalent to how we use it in 2014." There's no arguing with that. Instead, I feel very much like this is an issue of: "You asked questions, we didn't answer. You continued to ask: we didn't answer. You organized like-minded individuals to show a broader desire for answers, and because we're embarrassed by your actions, we're kicking you out of our club and we still won't answer." As I've watched the saga, I've felt like the Church is far more interested in appearances than it is in truth. It makes me very sad.

This really fits here:

My exposure into politics leaves me very soured. It is extremely corrupt and the President is no exception. I would argue that while there are lots of things that should be done, nothing will actually be done. The Imperial Presidency . . . each President pushes the boundaries of what can be done a little bit more and more and more. I think Obama should probably be impeached but not just for this but for starting undeclared wars, killing an American citizen without due process, authorizing deep data collection and spying on the American people, etc. But of course, I could say a lot of similar things about the previous President too. Our current system of checks and balances is rather trimmed down from what it used to be. The current checks and balances is one Federal branch checks another Federal branch . . . which is good for internal checks but that is like the right hand checking the left hand, there is no external check (i.e. another person). The Founders recognized that and originally made provisions for States to check the Federal government. States were to have the ultimate say by their power to remove themselves from the Federal government put in place. Before the Civil War there were multiple succession movements in the Northern States to succeed from the Union. But the ability of a state or multiple states to succeed is gone and probably won't be a real possibility for another 50-100 years. And until power returns to the State level to check the Federal level, there isn't much that will be done. As for current impeachment . . . regardless of which Team the vast majority of congresscritters are for enabling a larger more expansive government. The only reason any big government politician would vote for impeachment is if they felt their political life's were at risk. And while the Tea Party is doing some damage, IMHO it's not nearly enough. To be perfectly honest, things haven't gotten bad enough for real change. Another hard recession in the next year or two and it could be interesting.

There are no scriptures which downright say "Only men can be ordained because XYZ". The church admits this. However, men-only ordination to priesthood administrative offices is current practice (not doctrine). Theoretically this could change in the future, not that is not now. I think Kate Kelly's problem lies much more with actions than beliefs. Namely, marching on General Conference demanding a change in church policy, dragging the press into it, and prostloyzing these views to others. The 1st Pres letter says: "Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine." (An example) Say you openly go against Church teachings (say a major sexual sin) and are consoled against it. You don't feel remorse for you actions, publicly and loudly demand the church change it's policy, and try to convince others of this position. Yeah, I believe that such a person should undergo church discipline. Now for another example, say "Bob" struggles with a certain doctrine (say major sexual sin). He's really stumbling with it, but still trying to follow the Lord's ways. No, I don't think "Bob" should be excommunicated. For a third example: say "Jan" doesn't believe every current policy is optimal. Or doesn't believe some doctrines. But she doesn't campaign to convince people to change. I think she's chill

Having been involved in this discussion in a few formats, here's the bottom line that I see: This policy of women not holding the priesthood does not exclude anyone from entering the Celestial Kingdom, as we understand the Plan of Salvation. As far as I can tell, the only reason that people cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom is in personal worthiness as we now understand. Even those with same-sex attraction, while they must not act on their attraction, they can still partake of all the ordinances, live worthily, and enter the Celestial Kingdom. If they don't have a spouse that they married in the temple, they are promised that they will have a worthy spouse in the next life. Unless there are any policies, procedures, or doctrines that unfairly target anyone from attaining the highest blessings that have been revealed... I think we're okay.

I'm also for making executive orders for Presidents unConstitutional. This President has tried to use executive orders to go around passing laws through Congress. I am against any President doing this. It is too much power and upsets the checks and balances that should exist through all branches of the Federal goverment. Now another question is the following: are there too many people who will side with Obama in the Senate despite all the abuse of power to prevent impeachment proceedings against him?

Wow. I suppose if you feel so strongly about the matter you just can't handle officially being in the Church anymore... Hey, why wait to be separated, wheat and chaff style, when you can do it yourself? Sad.

I wonder if Angel Marvel is bragging how she had steak and lobster for dinner.

This whole topic amuses me because of how backwards it seems. When I went through the temple for the first time the temple president talked to me about propriety with the garments and how it is important to respect them and keep them sacred by keeping them covered... even when no one is watching. Of course this is not to be taken to the extreme that one could not put the garments on without another layer of clothing to cover or anything like that, I really feel that it comes down to your personal relationship with the Lord and covenants made. In any event my temple president did say that I should not lounge around in garments, but to cover up. I guess the short version is that in my opinion it is disrespecting the garment to hang out without covering them up.

They're not exactly designed to be attractive. Comfort is a matter of opinion, of course. Liking them in those regards isn't very meaningful. That's not why they are worn. I guess if one loves them as underwear then it's a bonus. Loving something is not a simple black and white. Do I love reading scriptures? Yes...and no. In some ways it's a labor and a burden. But it draws me closer to the Lord, so I love it, but I don't. The same can be true of church attendance, home and visiting teaching, going to the temple, service, etc., etc... We do the Lord's will in spite of our mortal imperfections and any natural issues we may have with that which we ought to be doing. Over time, we grow spiritually, and we grow up and realize what's truly important in life. I expect that there comes a point where any difficult thing, if we persist in faith long enough, grows to be very precious to us and any negatives fade away to nothingness.

I am not sure really I just can't get enthusiastic about a countries team that doesn't even call the game by its correct name, plus the Netherlands are closer to England than the US. I don't think they will win but they will probably be in the final. I think Germany are going to do it.

I couldn't afford a lawn mower and my back yard was a jungle. My EQP and his counselor came over and completely, weed whacked and mowed our lawn. It was super awesome of them.

I really despise it when people say they need to "stay true to one's self" because, just by nature of being mortal, we are all in truth, naturally carnal. "I need to say true to myself" is the clarion call of the myopic in intellect, thought and deed. Kind-of kills the notion of personal progress so instead, what they should say is "I refuse to change for the better" and/or "I refuse to allow my knowledge to evolve to a higher state of understanding." Besides, those seeking martyrdom don't really hold a whole lot of repute, only the need for attention.

Sorry, but it is thoughts like this that bug me to no end. Kelly inniated a dialogue. Believe it or not, she succeeded on that front. BUT she didn't like the answer and kept going. Therefore, we can only assume she wasn't looking for a dialogue. That, or didn't properly understand what a dialogue is. Once again, she didn't "just want to start a dialogue". She wanted ordination. That's it. Stop making up stuff about what she wanted.

It's because most who are excommunicated keep it private. She made it public herself by going to the media.

These excommunications were not to harsh at all. In fact they are merciful. I am surprised they didn't happen sooner and I bet that more are on the way. Those who support same-gender marriage, abortion, ordination of women, and other beliefs contrary to what God has taught should pay close attention to what is being said during General Conference. Those that openly support such things should look up the definition of apostasy, study what God has said to do about apostates, and not be surprised when they are cast out from among the saints.

Well Urstadt let's take a closer look again. A pattern of behavior that she has been told by her leaders is not harmonious with the Gospel. Having an agenda. Making sure that agenda is in the media. Making sure that agenda remains in the media. Lying about her behavior in the media. Hmmmm...sounds like someone getting their 15+ minutes to me.

Remaining true to oneself is not a gospel principle. And yet there is clear evidence of dishonesty driven by agenda. This is not a constitutional or legal issue in any way. The comparison makes no sense. Of course she has the legal right to it. And no one is throwing her in jail, beheading her, or proposing such should be done. And no one should ever revere fighting against God and His kingdom. Ever. This is false. The tools, gifts, and blessings she needed to stay afloat are already gone. The gift of the Holy Ghost is contingent on righteousness and obedience. You don't just get these things by virtue of membership. As with all covenants, If you don't keep up your end, you have no promise. Where? Seriously? Since when does excommunication keep her from going to church, keep her from counseling with her bishop? Keep her from praying? Keep her from reading scriptures? Nothing she needs for repentance has been taken from her. She has access to all the counselling, guidance, and mercy that she is willing to receive. She is unwilling! That is on her. You really think comparing a sports organization to the church is valid? Or that what some random analyst thinks defines truth and right? It is NOT your place to say if it was too harsh. This is the stewardship and prerogative of others. How can it be considered too harsh when she continued to openly rebel? Refusal to meet conditions, Refusal to humble herself. Refusal to accept doctrine and guidance. Refusal to even attend the counsel with a phone call. As the thread title states, what did she expect?! Uh....what? Wait...so you're interpreting, "Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith" as it being a trial because they did not think it was fair that those who were blotted out got blotted out? You think the " persecution which was heaped upon them" that caused them to bear with much patience was from the church?

The wedding reception is the least of your worries. If your fiance had/is experiencing emotional/psychological abuse from her father be prepared to deal with a whole lot of underlined issues and behavioral problems after you two get married (if you haven't seen the signs as yet). It is not going to be easy and you shouldn't take it personal but instead get the help she might need from you, good relatives and even a counselor if necessary.

Hi, Apex! Your wife knows what your father-in-law is like. Don't bad-mouth him. Don't speak badly of him. Let her. He is not obligated to pay for anything. He does not owe you that. Just accept that your wedding will be difficult, support your wife and tell her how much you love her. If you bad mouth her father, even if you're right, it will make your wife feel bad. It will not make him feel bad. It will accomplish nothing but make your wife even more stressed out. Do not talk to the father-in-law. It will only make things worse between you and him. Let it go. I'm sorry he won't help. That's a shame.

Yes, we had a very specific discussion on the returning of the w&d at the time. They even admitted the "we want to keep this" was a much later development. I agree that things ought to be clear, but I felt in this case they were. By the way, this has been resolved.

This is a false premise. Developed or not, we are indebted to God for all we have, even that we supposedly "earn".