slamjet

I don't know about making things worse. There have been far worse things that have happened to/in/about/by the church and it's still here. I wouldn't hang the disposition of a worldwide church on one person and their action. Look at the Catholic church, they're still around and they've had scandal after scandal after scandal. Besides, I would surmise that the total number of members who let themselves be affected by this is a pretty small number. As for those who go to their church leadership and demand a disciplinary hearing, well, I dunno, it seems they let the beauty of the gospel be defined by one person. I don't know about you folks, but I never and will never hang my fortunes on one, mortal person, especially the likes of Kate Kelly or John Dehlin. I've said it before and I reiterate it here - I've listened to both and read what they have to say and I can come to only one conclusion - they are both wolves in sheep's clothing that will do nothing but devour for their own aggrandizement and conceit. Been there, done that so I know their type and I know their slick methods. Their fruits are not good. If you're having a faith crisis, go listen to Bill Reel who runs mormondiscussionpodcast.org and the Fair Mormon Blog. He had a faith crisis when he was a Bishop. There may be nothing flashy or dramatic about his work, but that's how the Lord works, not by creating conflict, distention, and disharmony but by acknowledging and helping. If the church survived the death of a prophet, an extermination order, the priesthood ban, the September 6 (which I believe some have come back into the church), the salamander letter, ERA, polygamy, Prop 8, ect, then I do believe the church will go on just fine after the excommunication of Kate Kelly and potentially John Dehlin.

Husbands don't care, wives wear pj's, and congrats on hitting 6000 posts.

We have big families, we're high on the spirit, and we sing "rock of ages" as a hymn. I believe we got it covered.

I may be off in my thinking but I can't help thinking that the days of separating the wheat from the chaff have begun or is accelerating.

Church's response (LDS Newsroom Linky) So then this brings up the thought that can or will SCOTUS temper the ban when it comes to the free expression of one's religious liberty? Because it seems that if SCOTUS just blanket upholds all these bans then all religions will have no choice but to perform same-sex marriages. However, if the last couple of sessions are a gauge, then SCOTUS will most likely wimp out and give some ruling that will have everyone scratching their heads. But (in my humble unimportant, uneducated opinion) they're going to be forced to deal with this since all these appeal courts are ruling making it ripe for review.

JAG > Thanks, I forgot about protected class.

So, JAG, correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you would have done anyway) taking your last post, if SCOTUS says that marriage certification cannot be limited to man and woman, does that set a precedent that can be argued that any certification cannot be limited for example a state certification to be a lawyer can no longer be limited to those who have a clean criminal record? I don't think it's naive of me to see that overturning laws defining marriage are unconstitutional due to the equal protection clause is not a gay rights issue but a legal issue that will open up a whole can of worms that will be extremely difficult to unwind.

<EDIT: I believe I didn't read this correctly the first time, but I'll leave my post just because I want to try to sound intelligent> Then it would be more accurate to say "remember who you are" instead of "remember what you are." "Who he is" is different than "what he is." In Nephi's lamentations, in my understanding, he separates the flesh and the spirit. He laments that his flesh is so prone to sin that it pains him, but his spirit is filled with the joy of Christ; the difference between what he is vs who he is. I may be getting stuck in the semantics but what I am is a carnal person who is very capable of some pretty egregious sins but who I am is a person who has grabbed hold of the Atonement and risen above the sins of my past. It's the difference between the flesh and the spirit. I've spoken with addicts who have a wall because they can only see themselves as what they are, addicts. It's a life-changing moment when they realize they are more than what they are, who they are is a person who is perfectly capable of rising above their addictions once they learn to trust God. So, to me, what and who are two wholly separate states of being that matters.

I'm waiting for the "law of unintended consequences" to kick in, like, plural marriage being legalized. It's going to be a hoot when that whole community screaming marriage equality (no, not just the gay community, puleez!) rises up and screams "NO, that's not what we wanted!"

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.

So then let me ask the obvious question, where in scripture did Christ ordain women to the priesthood?

Ok, well, TFP reiterated what one of my stake presidents said once "there are many people in this stake who are walking around thinking they have the gift of the Holy Ghost, but they don't." So, let me speak from experience having been excommunicated for over 9 years and rebaptised last year, the Gift of the Holy Ghost may be taken away, but one still has the Light of Christ and wow, the wonders and miracles that have happened to me with "only" the Light of Christ really changed my perception of it. It's immensely more powerful than we give it credit. And regardless of what anyone says, it doesn't take much at all to have the Grace of God bless one's life. So to say that everything is taken away is a falacy, only the ordinances and blessings that eminate from them that come with church membership are removed. An excommunicant can still attend church, can still attend activities, can still fellowship with the saints, can still counsel and have the support of the Bishop and the Stake Presidency and the Relief Society President, and can still reap enormous blessings from reaching for the Light of Christ. So anyone that says that an excommunicant is banished from the church by the church not only is wrong, they don't know what they're talking about so anything more they have to say on the subject should be looked at with suspicion. Any banishment exercised is self imposed. And, as I posted before, to return to the fold through rebaptism is difficult, but that's because there will be a lot of pride and behavior that will need to be stripped out before one can once again accept that ordinance.

First off, the legal obsticals are just about cleared away with the quazi-legalization of same sex marriages (SCOTUS keeps whimping out). Second, I couldn't even keep one marriage together so I know I'm safe.

Something that can be shared with their hubby, like, you know, ahm, COOKIES, FUDGE, CANDIES! Nothing more is needed

I don't like to wear white shirts. First, I often have to go running around the stake fixing computers and sometimes, I have to reach into dusty, dirty closets. Also, my tummy sticks out so it rubs againsts things and gets dirty. Besides, I think I look better in blue shirts. And no, I don't wear suits. I don't like them, I don't like wearing coats.

One thing you-all should realize is that to come back into the fold after an excommunication is not the easiest because it takes a huge about of introspective and shedding of a lot of pride. There were times I thought it was way to high a bar because I had to be "perfect" to get back in. It was a slow climb but I made it and looking back, the bar wasn't sky high, it was set at the same level of expectation expected of all members starting with learning to live what is the first three steps of the 12 step program: I can't, He can, I choose to let Him. Kind-of says a lot of where one is when that severe of a disipline is imposed.

Well, regardless of my disagreement with her views and methods, my heart goes out to her because I am quite aquainted with what she's going to now go through. From my experience, there is now only two roads she will need to personally decide to trod when it comes to the church: decide to do what it takes to come back into the fold or decide to fight against the church. Rarely, if ever, will a middle road be able to be taken by an exommunicant. The buffeting of the adversary will be real, palpable and intense. Those were very dark days for me, it has been very dark days for other excommunicants I've spoken with, it will be very dark days for her. I can only hope that she doesn't give in and spiritually drown.

<snip>

crud, really?

Interesting Radio West interviews: > The potential excommunicants speak > The church speaks about the potential excommunications Thought these would be good to add to the discussion. At least these are words from those involved.

Precisely. The only way I can think it comes out of the blue is if the person is purposefully avoiding the Bishop or Stake President. But these things are very rarely, if ever, a surprise. Besides, the notice is most always delivered by two priesthood holders with at least one in the bishopric or presidency.

Women are for cooking, sewing, children, and being helpless without a priesthood holder in the home. Oh yea, don't pick up that heavy item, that's a man's job and don't even think of dating anyone who's not an RM. While I don't begrudge a woman who chooses to live that life, we (me and my kids mom) are of the school of thought that our kids must be taught independent living and thinking. Besides, our lineages are filled with extremely strong women who had to do a lot on their own in a time when that was not traditionally acceptable. So we raised our girls to be strong, independent, educated, driven, and thinkers who are just as capable handling power tools as they are being domestic goddesses. And yes, they handle power tools. They even called and had me talk them through jumping a car battery while they were in the rain. Maybe it's the overly-protective father in me but it gives me shivers to think of any of my daughters being wholly dependent on a man without any skills or education of their own.

Born into the church, got it taken away in 2004, got it back in 2013.

I can't remember who, but someone gave me mine. It kind-of fits.

I remember as a kid learning in school of the thought of trying to make the ice caps darker in color, like, black so that they can absorb the sun and melt because the climate was so cold. Gee, how times change.