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.

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.

My response would be: This is how the church was organized from the beginning by revelation to Joseph Smith.  Is that enough?
 
Also keep in mind:
> in the Official Declaration 2, they said that it was received by revelation and it's still a stumbling block. 
> Religion is inherently full of circular reasoning thus why personal revelation, testimony and faith is so important.  No one outside of Deity can give proof of the truth of any of this.
 
It seems the real question you're asking is: "Is the prophet and the other general authorities leading by direction from Christ or not?"  No one is going to give you an answer that's going to satisfy your question, and I believe that's a good thing because it becomes an exercise in personal faith to get the answer.

http://youtu.be/-QYlDLChzig

I'm sorry, I don't understand; why?  If it's something that has been signed off by not only the prophet, but his counselors and the 12, does including "thus sayeth the Lord" make it any more authoritative?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think that all separation, wheat and chaff style, will be done by the individual being separated. We remove ourselves from God, not the other way around, right?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Backroads:  Eliminating state-sanctioned marriage appeals to my libertarian instincts, but there are a lot of potential implications to this--not all of them necessarily foreseeable--and I don't like the idea of doing it rashly.  Moreover, the Church has encouraged us to protect the legal institution of the family--the Proclamation of the Family still applies--and I'm not sure our hopping on board with an "abolish legal marriage" agenda would really fit the counsel we've been given at this point.  I'm "asking questions"--uncomfortable ones, at that--but (unlike a certain ex-LDS feminist who shall remain nameless) I'm trying not to advocate any particular course of action at this point.
 
Slamjet, I have to reiterate that I haven't read the 10th Circuit opinion.  My observations were based on the idea of a liberty interest in conjunction with existing case law (I'm thinking Loving v. Virginia) which defines marriage generally as a fundamental right; and I'm not sure how traditional equal protection analysis factored into that.  I doubt it would limit a state's power to regulate anything except marriage. 
 
Equal protection jurisprudence basically asks two questions.  First, it asks whether a state law is discriminating against a "protected class".  If not, the state merely asks if the law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate government reason"--and if so, the law is permitted to stand.  But if the state is discriminating against a protected class, then depending on the nature of the class the Court will apply "intermediate scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny".  "Intermediate scrutiny" (applied to discrimination based on sex or content-neutral speech) asks whether the law substantially furthers an important government interest.  "Strict scrutiny" (discrimination based on content-based speech or race/national origin) asks whether the law is necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.
 
To apply that to your example of state bar applicants:  convicts aren't a protected class, so all you have to do is ask whether a state's requirement that a lawyer not being a convict is "rationally related" to a "legitimate government interest".  In this case, the state has a legitimate interest in making sure that lawyers are trustworthy (HA!), and it's rational to assume that barring convicts from law practice could further that goal.  So, the law passes equal protection scrutiny and is allowed to stand.  On the other hand, a state regulation that women or hispanics can't practice law would invoke a higher level of scrutiny, and would almost certainly fail traditional equal protection analysis.

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.

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.

Hehe. You mean like the anarchist who's upset when someone shoots him in the leg?