Backroads

I agree. If Sister Kelly hadn't taken this situation to the extremes that she did, she would still be a member of the Church. As it is, she pushed her agenda to the point where she has and still does encourage people to turn away from the Church. She seems to have forgotten the correct order of how things are done in this church which she claims to still believe is true, which is that the church is run and guided by Jesus Christ Himself, through revelation given to His Prophets, of which there are currently 15, and she is not one of them.
 
Revelation for the Church does not come through common members, it comes through those ordained and holding keys, and those who hold those keys have stated repeatedly that so far there has been no revelation given to them that women are now to be given the priesthood. Sister Kelly has and is still unwilling to accept that, and now she has stepped up the fight, to presume to speak for Christ, and to know better than those who have been entrusted with receiving revelation for the Church. When you claim to believe in a church that purports to be run by Christ through revelation and Prophets on the one hand, yet on the other hand claim that those same Prophets aren't receiving the proper revelation and that you know better, there's a bit of a contradiction in your way of thinking.
 
But Sister Kelly went even a bit further. She upped the ante when she started up a group with the basic premise that the leaders of the church are/were wrong, and that if enough people joined her cause, they could push the Church into changing its stand on the issue through public pressure. She seems to have forgotten that this church which runs by revelation, doesn't take public opinion polls to Jesus in order to receive its revelation.
 
Quite simply, in my opinion, she was in the wrong church. There are plenty of churches out there that operate and change doctrine through polls and bowing to public pressure, The LDS Church has not been and is not now one of them. SHe the one who went to the extremes. She separated herself from the Church a long time ago. The recent excommunication merely made it official.

Rather than getting ordained and trying to be 'one of the guys', I'd rather just embrace the power of womanhood and expand upon that (which is much more than giving birth).  

Scriptures on how it is only men to hold the priesthood:
 
D&C 20
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20?lang=eng
 
38 The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize;
 
48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.
 
49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present;
 
50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,
 
56 And he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest—
 
60 Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him.
 
64 Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.
 
 
Notice the contrast in verse 73:
 
73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
 
74 Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.
 
 
I find it curious that up until that point, the Lord emphasized He, His, or Him.  Then later, it was Him or her, and himself or herself.
 
 
Resuming with verse 76:
 
76 And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it—he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying:
 
78 The manner of administering the wine—he shall take the cup also, and say:
 
 
 
Just in looking at Section 20, and seeing how it is written for baptism - including himself or herself - and the rest of it is he, his, or him... it appears pretty clear to me.
 
Abraham 1
 
3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.
 
 31 But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.
 
Now Pharoah sought to IMITATE the priesthood:
 
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
 
 
The Priesthood has always been a Patriarchal order, from these few scriptures that I've posted.

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

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.

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?

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."

So you have this group of sisters who believe women should be ordained to the Priesthood. The reasoning behind it is that there is no scriptural basis that states women cannot. The statement of the First Presidency states: "Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices". Okay, I think the obvious follow up question is: "Where does it say that?" or "Is there a revelation where it states that only men are allowed to hold the Priesthood" and the answer that seems to be given over and over is "Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood, only men can". Yeah, I get that. So this groups says "Okay, but we saw X and X here and there that it is possible for them to hold it, etc".
 
One would think, a thorough answer will be given to clarify once and for all what the Church believes to be misleading thoughts or opinions or even facts..but no...the answer and tone remain the same: "Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood, only men can".  It seems to me that this sort of approach is unhelpful and doesn't lead to a proper dialogue and understanding of both sides.

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
 

Victoria's Secret and Old Navy are two brands that don't show my garments...

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.

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 don't know that it should be viewed in such black and white terms as worse/better - good/bad.  To say that Kate Kelly's excommunication was bad is incomplete. To say that it was good is also incomplete. It is good and bad. It is tragic for her. It is bound to cause troubles. It is also good though. It draws a line, sets the standard, protects the church and it's doctrine, and hopefully, if she humbles herself, will lead her back to the fold someday. That's just off the top of my head. There are certainly other good and bad things to it. So it is with better/worse. Will it be worse for some? Yes. Is it overall, universally going to be worse? No. In some ways it will be better. There will be those driven away from the church because of it and there will be those who are protected from being driven away.
 
We all react differently to different things. It's way to complicated to view as an overreaching improvement or setback.
 
Moreover, and more importantly, the forces of evil will continue to gather. In that regard, things WILL get worse...pretty much continually until the second coming. Standing for truth and right will, inevitably, in many instances make things worse. Failure to stand for truth and right won't help though.

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?

I must resist.  I must resist.  I must resist.

Some of them are just badly done and seem to say more about the skill of the Photoshopper and less about 'national' standards of beauty.

I'm confused...why is anyone making any valuative statement about someone's feelings toward the Garment based on how they like to lounge around?  To me, those seem like entirely distinct concepts.

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.

I certainly wouldnt' be lending them anything else soon for sure... dunno i'f i'd go so far to stick em on a hate list tho, or a don't visit again list.
Also it seems from the info here that its someone else and not the friend that's causing the grief.
personally i think the route of mercy is a higher road than the route of justice. you may want some time to cool off but ultimately its probably best if you forget about the washer and dryer.

I wouldn't call for it unless he clearly used this to steer congressional votes. I already think the house should bring charges for failing to notify congress of a prisoner exchange. If you are going to bring a charge, might as well grab all the possible charges you can.

I am not endowed yet. But when I am, I suspect I will find garments uncommfortable because I have sensory issues that mean I find many fabrics/clothes touching my skin uncomfortable and annoying but I will wear them to remind me of the convants I made. Personally I don't think I would hang out just wearing them because kinda in my mind they are in a way being naked I am not explaining properly but I know what I mean. I wouldn't judge anyone who did hang about in them though, unless it was some one other than my partner and I had  gone to visit them, that could be akward

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

My wife never hangs out that way. She always wears jammies or the like. I think it's a guy/girl thing partially.

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.

Backroads, that's kind of my point.
 
I would guess most that go through the trouble of being endowed and wearing garments, appreciate the meaning and symbolism that garments represent, even if they hate the fabric or fashion statement they make (to yourself).