Backroads

I think all of us must be behind in paying me the dues and fees for it to work......Lol

I disagree with the notion that the religious practices of an owner can be extended into the corporation.  This same disagreement is at the heart of why I object to the Citizens United decision.  My understanding is that the corporation, as a concept, exists to shield the owner from liability should the corporation fail.  So it bothers me that we are extending all of the attributes and beliefs of the owner onto the corporation that is supposed to be the barrier.
 
In some sense, this is why I think corporations like the cake company shouldn't be able to refuse service to same sex couples, unless they are sole proprietors.  If you are going to take the protection offered by the corporation, you give up other elements of control.
 
But in the end, I guess it doesn't really matter.  If the concern is that the owners of these corporations would be committing sinful negligence by paying for these forms of contraception, and the Supreme Court rules that the government should pay for it with tax revenues to grant the exemption, then I guess these owners are still going to burn in hell.  Yay!  everyone wins! </sarcasm>

Forgot to add the comments on the Uniform section befor eI posted it.
...  And you can access the link to read more.

As far as the courts are concerned, if the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that life begins at conception, then government must honor their sincerely held religious belief.  Most pro-lifers would say that once the egg is fertilized life has begun.

Maureen, you seem to be basing your conclusion on a vary shaky foundation given how utterly inappropriate it would have been for Kelly's leaders to go public with the content of that December meeting in December or, indeed, at any time prior to Kelly's actual excommunication.  It does appear, from the notice of probation, that there were concerns about Kelly misrepresenting her conversations with priesthood authorities, certainly as early as that May 22 letter and very likely at least as early as her meeting with her stake president on May 5.
 
Moreover, Kelly's and her leaders' versions of the December meeting (as you recite them here) are not explicitly contradictory.  Kelly concedes, in her FMH post, that the meeting was held at her leaders' request.  She further concedes that her leaders "do not agree with me" in the immediate aftermath of that meeting. 
 
Now, they are implicitly contradictory in that Kelly suggested that her leaders had essentially green-lit her activities whereas her leaders maintain that they actually encouraged her to desist.  But to accept Kelly's version of events (and her analysis of their meaning) is to believe that a Mormon bishop and stake president would time out of their personal schedules and call a random Church member in for a discussion with the two of them, together (I have never had this happen to me, and have never heard of it happening to anyone else) merely to say "we don't agree with what you're doing--but by all means, keep on doing it and we promise you'll never, ever be disciplined for it no matter what you might do hereafter in furtherance of your goals!"  A non-Mormon who believes that bishops and stake presidents are inherently a group of vacillating ogres might buy into that notion; but It's an idea that is completely foreign to most of our experiences as Mormons. 
 
And even more bizarre is the suggestion that Kelly's stake leadership--whom she has acknowledged disagreeing with her--would seek a meeting with her in December of 2013, when not a lot was happening with OW; but would not seek another meeting with her in March or April of 2013 right when Conference time was approaching, the Church had publicly asked OW to desist, and things generally were really heating up. 
 
Now, we Mormons are happy to believe rather unlikely fact scenarios (God appearing to a fourteen-year-old farm boy.  Really!)--if the Holy Spirit confirms to us that we should.  But that hasn't happened; and in its absence, I'm going to stick with the old "out of the mouths of two or three witnesses" routine.

The Hobby Lobby majority, summarized in (relatively) plain English

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.

The secular fundamentalists keep saying Hobby Lobby won the right to deny their workers "easy access" to contraception.  In fact, SCOTUS agreed that it should not be required to pay for abortificents (sp?) for them.  Why did the court agree?
 
1.  Corporations are often treated as persons, under the law.  This is nothing new.  It's appropriate here because of the unified faith of Hobby Lobby's (and the other company) very few owners.
 
2.  HHS made no attempt to seek "least restrictive means" of attaining its goal of free contraceptives for all.  It has granted other exemptions, so how can it argue that there were no alternatives here?
 
3.  HHS can easily remedy this gap by either paying for the contraceptives directly (by taxing us), or by requiring insurance companies to foot the bill.
 
And so, this is a victory of morals and perception.  The ACA bullied people of sincere religious conviction, and SCOTUS drew a line.  Why the secular fundamentalists are so outraged is that they WANT to force Christians to pay for abortion-inducing contraceptives.  After all, they are secular, and they are ideological fundamentalists.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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?"

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'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. 

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 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?"

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?"

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)

No because no one wants to look at his butt.  

Here are your scriptural references:  The prophet said so, let alone it's a long established and ancient pattern that has been established in ALL scripture.
 
Kate Kelly teaches that God has no gender, that God is both man and women.  That is 100% false doctrine taken from the ordain women website, which is a group that she started.
 
Kate Kelly was asked not to publicly protest and she did.  That is one of many examples of how she exactly opposed the Church and it's leaders.
 
If you are actively teaching doctrine that is false and you continue teaching after your bishop tells you to stop, then yes- you really can get excommunicated because that is apostasy.  It really does happen, it's what the scriptures and God says to do, and it shouldn't come as a surprise.

How asking if they prayed about it equals demanding the Prophet to pray about and then come back and report?. You know, I have the impression (generally speaking) that a lot of members think we should just take an answer and don't ask follow-up questions or that asking them is somehow inappropriate because the First Presidency made a statement.
 
Definitely, I see things very differently and I am very okay with it. As someone who studies and researches history, I am inquisitive by nature. Having said that, regardless of what the Church stated (that it is okay to ask questions), in reality when those questions are asked, members either assume you lack faith, you are perceived as being plainly rebellious or that you think you know more than the Prophet. Really? Asking follow up questions in order to get a better understanding of the issue equals all of that? I really don't understand this mindset.
 
I am very cool if others are satisfied with the statements and don't care to ask follow up questions (for whatever reason) and I would hope others feel as cool when others do ask instead of assuming they lack faith or that the answer should be "enough".