Excommunications on the Rise.

[slamjet]

SlamJet (or someone else), when a person is summoned to a discipline hearing, that doesn't come out of the blue, does it?  I mean, at least your (generic you) bishop should have talked to you about things first. 

 

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.

[pam]

Kate Kelly has also mentioned that she no longer lives in the area that the disciplinary council is to be held in.

[bytebear]

I found it humourous that the article called the excommunication "very public" when in fact, it was they who publicized it. 

 

Also, excommunication isn't just about kicking people out, but it's about releasing the person from the covenants they are willfully breaking. 

[MarginOfError]

If you're interested in how I feel about the issue

http://myuncommondissent.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-little-less-like-home.html

 

If you're not interested in how I feel about the issue:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/gifs-that-will-make-you-laugh-every-time

[pam]

I feel for the Bishops of these two who are probably being hounded by the media right now.

[The Folk Prophet]

If you're not interested in how I feel about the issue:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/gifs-that-will-make-you-laugh-every-time

 

I much preferred this one.   Made me laugh.

[FunkyTown]

I feel for the Bishops of these two who are probably being hounded by the media right now.

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.

[Just_A_Guy]

I understand where you're coming from, MoE (liked the gifs too, by the way).  But it seems to me Kelly was going far beyond dialogue--she had openly said nothing short of ordination would suffice; and therefore was at least as entrenched in her position as the Church was in its position.  Dehlin had reached a point where he was openly disavowing belief in the Church's truth claims.  I can do that in my bishop's office, and would feel pretty safe doing so.  I would not feel "safe" doing so before third parties and encouraging them to follow down my road--nor do I believe I have a right to such "safety".  "Help me understand" is very different than "tell me why--and understand I'm going to pick apart anything you say".

 

As for Oaks' talk:  I think the two "new" things I got from it were, a) the strongest attribution yet of the status quo (male-only ordination) to divine decree; and b ) this novel and interesting idea that women who perform their callings in the Church, are already wielding "priesthood" authority and power (a notion that does create a lot of questions; but on the whole, I think it leaves us with more light and knowledge than we had previously).

 

One interesting thing about Mormonism is that I think it has traditionally liked to keep apologetics and "theology" (as academics understand the term) at arm's length.  Mormonism focuses on the "what", not the "why"--perhaps in part because, frankly, the "whys" are wont to change occasionally (exhibit a:  the explanations for the priesthood ban for blacks.  Exhibit b:  a smattering of apologetics arguments--in archaeology, for example--that have turned out to be unsubstantiated as archaeological knowledge progresses).  The Church has chosen--for better or for worse--to maintain that policy with OW. 

 

In your post, you observe:

 

I keep hearing people say, "Well how do you know that they haven't prayed about and gotten an answer."  I don't.  I also don't know that they have prayed about it.

 

Honestly, I think Mormon progressives aren't getting a more articulate answer here because when they did get such an answer re the priesthood ban (I'm thinking specifically of Pres. McKay's experience where he was denied permission to rescind the ban, which is known by academics and occasionally rehashed in the bloggernacle, where it is magnificently ignored), which--on the whole--they refuse to accept.  Each of us has to ask ourselves:  What would you do with a revelation, if you had one?  Kelley and Dehlin have already answered that question in a very public way.

 

Mormon Women Stand may have had some principals make some impolitic/overzealous statements; but the bottom line is:  OrdainWomen has implicitly, and in some cases explicitly, set limits on the sorts of revelation they are willing to accept.  MWS has not done so, which is why they--and not OW--have the ear of the powers that be as they air whatever concerns they have about the status of women in the church.

[The Folk Prophet]

Funky, I agree with your post but a few thoughts:

 

...then pray to God for women to receive the Priesthood...

 

How about we pray to God that His will be done instead, as He asked us to?

 

That could definitely be a righteous desire. 

 

What defines righteousness? Our perception of right...or God's? Just because we think something is good does not make it good.

 

 

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'd take it a step further. We should be working to make our desires the same as God's. Making our wills subservient to His is only a starting point. We should want what God wants.

[The Folk Prophet]

As for Oaks' talk:  I think the..."new" things I got from it [was]...this novel and interesting idea that women who perform their callings in the Church, are already wielding "priesthood" authority and power (a notion that does create a lot of questions; but on the whole, I think it leaves us with more light and knowledge than we had previously).

 

I'm not sure how this is novel or creates a lot of questions. All the power of God is the priesthood power. Hence, any act done by Him is priesthood power. All revelation, miracles, blessings, ordinances, etc. An understanding that women have no personal access to priesthood power implies that women have no personal access to revelation or miracles.

 

Does anyone in the church, or has anyone ever, felt that a woman praying cannot receive answers and guidance? Does anyone believe that a woman's faith is insufficient for miracles?

 

All these things come by the priesthood power of God.

 

I guess I can see how it may be a novel thought to those who haven't seen it that way before. But what questions does it raise?

[Bini]

I have a question.

 

I caught a brief segment on Kate Kelly and she made a comment, which I can't directly quote, but went something like the following:

 

There is no LDS doctrine that specifically outlines that the priesthood is exclusively for men.

 

Is this true?

 

If no, then fine. Does someone have a source that supports this? But if yes, I'm curious where the barring against women comes in. What would be the reasoning behind it?

[Just_A_Guy]

I have a question.

 

I caught a brief segment on Kate Kelly and she made a comment, which I can't directly quote, but went something like the following:

 

 

Is this true?

 

If no, then fine. Does someone have a source that supports this? But if yes, I'm curious where the barring against women comes in. What would be the reasoning behind it?

 

Kelly is exploiting ambiguities in LDS teaching in such a way as to synthesize a statement that, while arguably semantically true, is highly misleading.  For example, she draws on the somewhat nebulous definition of "doctrine" where Mormonism is concerned, and the question of whether certain key texts (e.g., the fifth article of faith) apply to "men" specifically, or "men" as an archaic term for "mankind" (Oh, fine--humankind).  But Elder Oaks' April Conference sermon was crystal clear on this.

 

As for the reasoning behind such a doctrine:  Because women were fence-sitters in the war in heaven, of course. 

 

More seriously:  My own opinion, drawing in part on the Proclamation on the Family, is that the Church believes that (speaking generally, and to some degree there are of course individual exceptions to this) males and females are fundamentally different in nature; and that these natures are typically best suited to different kinds of ministries.  But as I point out earlier:  my experience is that institutional Mormonism doesn't do "whys" very much.  We're supposed to get the "whys" directly from God Himself, not from our Sunday school teachers.

--

 

In other semi-related news:  Allegedly Rock Waterman, who runs a little blog called "Pure Mormonism" (I haven't looked at it in a while, but my recollection is that it's basically Snufferist carping at the modern corporate Church with a bit of a libertine streak with regard to the Church's view of morality), has also recently had the church disciplinary process invoked against him as well.

[The Folk Prophet]

As for the reasoning behind such a doctrine:  Because women were fence-sitters in the war in heaven, of course. 

 

Ha ha ha! Need a laugh button.

[The Folk Prophet]

my experience is that institutional Mormonism doesn't do "whys" very much.  We're supposed to get the "whys" directly from God Himself, not from our Sunday school teachers.

 

I don't know that I entirely agree. First, Sunday School lessons have pretty much always been a series of "whys". I mean, when was the last time you had a lesson on fasting that didn't explicitly deal with why we fast.

 

I know there are comments (I believe from Oaks as well) that we shouldn't worry about the whys. I find that inconsistent with a lifetime of learning. Why is always the core of the discussion.

 

Why are we here? Why did Jesus die for us. Why do we have commandments. Why do we even have the priesthood? Why are ordinances important. Why must we be baptized. Why, why, why...it goes on and on.

 

The implication that the institution doesn't do whys very well applied as a whole is, I think, inaccurate, and is inserting some exceptions to a general reality to arrive at a false conclusion. Yes, there are certain subjects where we are unable to do the whys (black and the priesthood, etc.). God has not revealed all things. But there are many more instances where God has revealed why, and our understanding is clear and the whys are handled very well.

 

The entire plan of salvation is one big why.

[Guest]

<snip>

 

FUNKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Okay... carry on...

[MarginOfError]

Kelly is exploiting ambiguities in LDS teaching in such a way as to synthesize a statement that, while arguably semantically true, is highly misleading.  For example, she draws on the somewhat nebulous definition of "doctrine" where Mormonism is concerned, and the question of whether certain key texts (e.g., the fifth article of faith) apply to "men" specifically, or "men" as an archaic term for "mankind" (Oh, fine--humankind).  But Elder Oaks' April Conference sermon was crystal clear on this.

I'm not sure there is universal agreement on this, however.  I know some will roll their eyes at the reminder of President Hinckley's statements about "no agitation" for women to hold the priesthood, but in that same interview he outright said that the Lord could change things so that women hold the priesthood.  Turning that into "Sure the Lord could do it, but he never actually would." is really unsatisfying when it doesn't come up with any rationale behind it.

 

As I described in my blog post, to the intellectuals/academics, it feels like the church is fighting over conclusions without ever addressing the assumptions.  For a lot of us, rejecting, discounting, or disproving the assumptions on which our conclusions are based would be more than sufficient to put the matter to rest*

 

That said, I agree with you that Kelley and Ordain Women have taken hold of ambiguities to make their case.  I just think it'd be more productive to state where the ambiguities are and establish your own interpretations at those ambiguities.  The recent developments make it feel like the Church as an organization is uncomfortable with the concept of ambiguity.

 

 

* As you mentioned earlier though, not all intellectuals will reevaluate their conclusions in light of new evidence.  Such people do not deserve to be called intellectuals.

[The Folk Prophet]

For a lot of us, rejecting, discounting, or disproving the assumptions on which our conclusions are based would be more than sufficient to put the matter to rest

 

Not applying this to you specifically, but for the ordain women thinkers at large, I simply do not buy this.

[MarginOfError]

Not applying this to you specifically, but for the ordain women thinkers at large, I simply do not buy this.

 

I think you would be surprised at how many ordain women thinkers would accept a reasoned and thoughtful response that addressed where the Church disagrees with the supporting logic of Ordain Women's cause.  

[The Folk Prophet]

I think you would be surprised at how many ordain women thinkers would accept a reasoned and thoughtful response that addressed where the Church disagrees with the supporting logic of Ordain Women's cause.  

 

*shrug* Maybe. I expect that what would be considered "reasonable" would vary vastly. I think the church has been quite reasonable in their response and dealing with the issue. I find the response entirely sufficient. Those who find it unreasonable and insufficient, I suspect, would generally continue to find it unreasonable and insufficient.

[prisonchaplain]

I get that some LDS women would want ordination.  Perhaps I get it more than  most, because my fellowship does ordain them.  Nevertheless, I am confused by these groups.  Why do they lobby?  Why do the seem to seek support and publicity from non-members?

 

As for Dahlin, I confess to ignorance.  However, most churches have people who disagree with certain doctrines.  When ordained members disagree with core teachings (yes, we have a few of these in my fellowship), then it would seem that, "Grasshopper...it is time for you to go."

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know that I entirely agree. First, Sunday School lessons have pretty much always been a series of "whys". I mean, when was the last time you had a lesson on fasting that didn't explicitly deal with why we fast.

 

I know there are comments (I believe from Oaks as well) that we shouldn't worry about the whys. I find that inconsistent with a lifetime of learning. Why is always the core of the discussion.

 

Why are we here? Why did Jesus die for us. Why do we have commandments. Why do we even have the priesthood? Why are ordinances important. Why must we be baptized. Why, why, why...it goes on and on.

 

The implication that the institution doesn't do whys very well applied as a whole is, I think, inaccurate, and is inserting some exceptions to a general reality to arrive at a false conclusion. Yes, there are certain subjects where we are unable to do the whys (black and the priesthood, etc.). God has not revealed all things. But there are many more instances where God has revealed why, and our understanding is clear and the whys are handled very well.

 

The entire plan of salvation is one big why.

 

I don't disagree; but the "whys" tend to tie back into "whats".  The bottom line is that we're supposed to seek a specific kind of relationship with the Savior, and live in a certain kind of way.  The knowledge of why we are here, why we have commandments, why we need ordinances, and so on; reinforce the Church's teachings on what we actually need to do.  We're blessed to have more of the "whys" than any other religion, but we get ourselves into trouble when we assume we have all or even most of them--because it cultivates this idea that it's acceptable to actively resist the "what" until we know the "why".

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not sure there is universal agreement on this, however.  I know some will roll their eyes at the reminder of President Hinckley's statements about "no agitation" for women to hold the priesthood, but in that same interview he outright said that the Lord could change things so that women hold the priesthood.  Turning that into "Sure the Lord could do it, but he never actually would." is really unsatisfying when it doesn't come up with any rationale behind it.

 

I'm not sure Oaks went that far (though, in fairness, as I recall I think some of LDS PA's statements may have done so).  All he said was "this is the way things are, and we don't have the authority to change them".  Now, his talk of the Church leadership's keys being limited, in the context of his claim that they are not authorized to ordain women, can arguably be read as suggesting by implication that it would take a restoration of additional priesthood keys a la Elijah in the Kirtland Temple before women could be ordained.  But even if that's what Elder Oaks meant, it's very different than saying "the Lord never actually would allow women to hold priesthood office".

 

Oaks' position strikes me as very similar to the Church's position re blacks and the priesthood ever since Brigham Young discoursed on the policy before the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1852--the Lord can change things any time He wishes; but in the absence of a revelation we, the leaders, just don't have the authority to revoke the policy.  What the Church has not done is to follow Young's example of speculating as to what specifically would need to happen before the Lord changed His mind (as I recall Young suggested that blacks, the "seed of Cain", would never be ordained until all of the seed of Adam's more righteous progeny had already had their opportunity to receive or reject the priesthood).  With all due respect, you seem to be insisting that the Church follow Young's lead (not with the racism, naturally; but in coming up with a "why" that may eventually turn out to be spurious); whereas I think they are very wise not to speculate about things of which they have no knowledge.

 

Besides, per their own website--OW wasn't asking for a "why"; they were asking for a "what".

 

 As I described in my blog post, to the intellectuals/academics, it feels like the church is fighting over conclusions without ever addressing the assumptions.  For a lot of us, rejecting, discounting, or disproving the assumptions on which our conclusions are based would be more than sufficient to put the matter to rest*

 

 

* As you mentioned earlier though, not all intellectuals will reevaluate their conclusions in light of new evidence.  Such people do not deserve to be called intellectuals.

 

The Church has addressed the assumptions, to some degree.  For example, Elder Oaks has suggested elsewhere (I'm paraphrasing) that a man and woman can have separate spheres of responsibility (with their appurtenant duties) while still being equal to each other--a teaching that, I believe, harks back to the days of President Kimball; but that flies in the face of post-Brown v. Board of Education secular thinking, academic or otherwise.  There are few, among the intelligentsia, who will entertain the notion, and even fewer who are willing to "experiment on the word" by taking a stab at actually living that principle in a Christlike manner, as intended, as spelled out in the Proclamation on the Family in conjunction with the temple liturgy and other resources of the Church.

 

 

That said, I agree with you that Kelley and Ordain Women have taken hold of ambiguities to make their case.  I just think it'd be more productive to state where the ambiguities are and establish your own interpretations at those ambiguities.  The recent developments make it feel like the Church as an organization is uncomfortable with the concept of ambiguity.

 

The Church has offered a very clear interpretation of the ultimate issue (female ordination to priesthood office at this time).  But it has left the "intermediate ambiguities" (how to determine doctrine, for example--they've taken stabs at the issue, which aren't wholly satisfactory; or coming out with a definitive compendium listing every time "man" or "men" occurs in the scriptures and specifying whether each usage refers to males specifically, or to humankind) hanging out there; and that tells me that they're OK with some ambiguity as long as someone isn't making a Kelly-esque effort to pervert those ambiguities into advocacy for a course of action that--as far as the Church leadership is concerned--is clearly contrary to the will of the Lord at this point in time. 

[Wingnut]

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.

 

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. 

I was also wondering what you meant by the "the 'peter priesthood' view of women," so I appreciate the clarification.  I'll tell you that your daughters' experiences are definitely on par with mine: that the 1950s housewife model is perpetuated by women in the Church far more than it is by men.  It's disappointing to me, because I feel like women limit themselves with that attitude.  Want to stay home with the kids?  Great.  It works for you, and you choose it.  But don't push it universally on everyone, and don't judge people who make different family choices.

 

 

Kate Kelly has also mentioned that she no longer lives in the area that the disciplinary council is to be held in.

Yes, I read today that she is currently living in Utah, while waiting to move to Kenya.  The council is to be convened in Virginia, where she's recently moved from.  Her bishop acknowledged knowing that she's moved from the area, and provided information on how she can still participate if she's unable to appear in person (letters, etc.).

 

 

Not applying this to you specifically, but for the ordain women thinkers at large, I simply do not buy this.

I think I agree with you on this, but only in a very literal way.  I think that MOE is correct about Mormon Feminists in general -- that a definitive response to the effect that "we've inquired of the Lord, and He said no, at least for now," with perhaps some other discussion -- would be placated.  Ordain Women as a group is more extreme than the general body of Mormon Feminists, and I think they would be greatly disappointed, and some might be satisfied, but the organization as a whole would likely just change tactics.

 

 

The Church has offered a very clear interpretation of the ultimate issue (female ordination to priesthood office at this time).  But it has left the "intermediate ambiguities" (how to determine doctrine, for example--they've taken stabs at the issue, which aren't wholly satisfactory; or coming out with a definitive compendium listing every time "man" or "men" occurs in the scriptures and specifying whether each usage refers to males specifically, or to humankind) hanging out there; and that tells me that they're OK with some ambiguity as long as someone isn't making a Kelly-esque effort to pervert those ambiguities into advocacy for a course of action that--as far as the Church leadership is concerned--is clearly contrary to the will of the Lord at this point in time. 

I think the Church sometimes leaves ambiguities in place deliberately.  Such an idea is in line with what we're taught in the Doctrine and Covenants, that "it is not meet that [the Lord] should command in all things."  It also allows for personal interpretation of scripture, and personal revelation.  Without ambiguity, neither would be necessary or helpful.

[Wingnut]

I read a nice write-up this morning, that I felt gave a fairer treatment than what I read yesterday in the NYT, and which also gave more background information.  It also includes links to the letters that were sent to both of these members.  http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58056757-78/kelly-font-scribd-dehlin.html.csp

It turns out that I was wrong earlier when I said that both Kate Kelly and John Dehlin were still members in good standing, as far as we knew.  Kate had received a letter from her stake president last month, following up on a meeting with him, that placed her on informal probation, but which specifically stated that she was no longer able to say that she was a member in good standing.  John had recently requested no contact from church members, missionaries, or leaders, and had also requested no home teachers.  Effectively, he's removed himself from the Church already, all but formally.

I do still feel for Kate, but less so for John, now that I'm aware of actions that he has already taken.

[The Folk Prophet]

Methinks there is a re-defining of the meaning of the word "faithful" in the mind's eyes of many. As in statements such as:

 

If the Mormon faithful are divided, Evans said, "we are all diminished."