mirkwood

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.

Are you saying that while wearing a white shirt?

Can we argue about caffeine in this thread too?

Are you saying that while wearing a white shirt?

Can we argue about caffeine in this thread too?

Just a personal observation, personal experience. 
 
The Holy Ghost is NOT taken away, when we do not follow the Gospel Principles, do not obey the commandments of God, do not seek the light of Christ. When we actively and ardently search for and follow the Adversary - then WE chase away the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost cannot dwell among evil, the adversary. The person, Kate Kelly in this case, invited the adversary into her life and the resulting consequences was the Holy Ghost left her. 
 
Being excommunicated from the Church is NOT the same as being found guilty in a court of the land and being sent to prison. 
 
The above quote is from:  
The Principles and Purposes of Church Courts Lesson 41: Section 102Doctrine and Covenants Instructor’s Guide: Religion 324-325, (1981), 81–82

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.

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?

Alma chapter 1

 

24 For the hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God. And also manywithdrew themselves from among them.

 25 Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith; nevertheless, they were steadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of God, and they bore with patience the persecution which was heaped upon them.

Well, she was apparently on formal probation since early May, but neglected to inform her following about it until she got her notice of hearing earlier this month.  She has (or her supporters have) also claimed that her local leaders never discussed OW with her until April or May; whereas today's letter confirms that discussions were happening as early as last December.  The Church could never go straight to the press with a detail like that.  But by putting it into Kelly's letter--which they knew darned well Kelly would feed to the press--they were able to get the story out regardless.

*yawn*  just another apostate looking for 15 minutes.

*yawn*  just another apostate looking for 15 minutes.

*yawn*  just another apostate looking for 15 minutes.

Can we argue about caffeine in this thread too?

Can we argue about caffeine in this thread too?

So that would mean they get married in a civil ceremony and then can get sealed right?
 
Basically the way the UK does it now.

The Church also has the option to stop all marriages in the temples and just do sealings...
 
So no I don't see it happening

au contraire.
 
I'm pretty sure my marriage certificate and temple sealing paperwork only includes two names.  I'm also pretty sure the scriptures say to cleave unto my wife (spouse) and none other.  I have a pernicious in law...and I'm certainly not married to that individual.
 
Yes, they are an issue in our life and not in a good way.

Foghat

If I were giving a TR interview, and knew for whatever reason that your records showed 0 for tithing, I knew you were employed, and you said yes, I would ask a clarifying question about how you were paying. Once you told me you were paying direct, unless prompted by the spirit, that would be good enough for me. I see no problem with a clarifying question following a response, if there is information in the hands of the bishop, to cause concern about the answer.

Here is my perspective. My wife doesn't like to cook. I like to cook. She made a deal with me when we got married. I cook, she does the dishes. I agreed. I sure do wash a lot of dishes in my house.

I have a theory about this whole 'Ordain Women' thing.
 
If you believe that President Monson is guided by God, then pray to God for women to receive the Priesthood. If it's the right thing to do, he'll get the message. If he doesn't, he won't.
 
If you don't believe he's guided by God, then why are you in the church in the first place?
 
It seems to me that the big problem here isn't asking for the Priesthood(That could definitely be a righteous desire. Heck - I wanted the Priesthood. ) or in questioning the Church(We're a diverse people. Nothing wrong with questioning).
 
The problem here is demanding God's will be subservient to yours - Asking a question and only accepting one answer. That way never turns out well.

I just had a talk with my daughter because of some sisters, not brothers, but sisters were shoving the "peter priesthood" view of women in the church.  This greatly disturbs me because all my girls tell me that it's usually not the men, it's the women that perpertrate this thinking.  Quite frankly, besides being sealed in the temple and enduring to the end, men need to be ordained to the priesthood to attain the highest level of celestial glory.  Women need only to be born.  I kind-of read something into this.
 
In any case, this whole "exponential" growth in excommunications is just plain silly unless someone can come up with numbers to support that position.  Otherwise, it's two people who have an agenda, who are polarized in their thinking, and have been invited to a disiplinary hearing.  I don't know much about Kate Kelly but I have listened to John Dehlin in interviews and podcasts and he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
 
But I've been on the excommunicated side and I say from my own and other's experience, if they are excommunicated, they are in for some of the darkest, most challenging days of their lives because they will be buffeted by the advisary in ways they will never expect.  They will have left only two roads to go: setting aside their pride, getting some humility and walk towards the light of Christ, or continue down the path they are on and drown in the darkness.  There is no middle ground. 
 
So before they or anyone begins to blame the church for making their lives difficult, or creating difficulty for them or their families, they ought to take responsibility and accept what is to come because they got into this knowing that the outcome would end up looking like it looks now. 
 
Their crying foul is unimpressive.  Their letting the world know only makes transparent their contempt and proves their agenda and disingenuousness.

The church made a statement today in response to questions from the media regarding disciplinary actions:
 
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/
 
"The Church is a family made up of millions of individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions. There is room for questions and we welcome sincere conversations. We hope those seeking answers will find them and happiness through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
"Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.
 
"Actions to address a person’s membership and standing in their congregation are convened after lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior. Ultimately, the door is always open for people to return to the Church."