"What did you expect would happen when you made that choice?"

[Str8Shooter]

The recommends don't really need to be turned in.  One mouse click and the person is not getting in.

[Just_A_Guy]

Suzie, I think a couple of stories have mentioned that Kelly's parents have been asked to turn over their recommends; as has Hannah Wheelwright (another OW leader).

[The Folk Prophet]

Suzie, I think a couple of stories have mentioned that Kelly's parents have been asked to turn over their recommends; as has Hannah Wheelwright (another OW leader).

 

But certainly not as a condition related to her excommunication.

[Str8Shooter]

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.

[mrmarklin]

I feel bad for her. I truly think she just doesn't understand. I believe she has honest and good intent. She's merely deceived and blinded by the wisdom of men (or...uh...women, in this case). 

 

I actually really respect that in her statement she plead with others not to leave because of this. It's too bad her views (and others supporting her) are misguided because her passion and good will could be put to positive use instead.

 

It is sad.

I disagree.

She does understand.

She doesn't have honesty or good intentions.

She's being deceived by satan.

Maybe there is some mitigation in her letter, but I doubt it. The more members that "stay" in the church with her POV, the better s for Satan.

[The Folk Prophet]

I disagree.

She does understand.

She doesn't have honesty or good intentions.

She's being deceived by satan.

Maybe there is some mitigation in her letter, but I doubt it. The more members that "stay" in the church with her POV, the better s for Satan.

 

Could be. Best not to judge. Whether she understands or not, I agree with your last sentence.

[Backroads]

I'm getting sick of all these blog posts demanding we show love and fellowship for these supporters.  Not because we shouldn't show love and fellowship, but because every single blog posts demands we consider their point of view. 

 

I considered it.  I don't like it. I'm not going to "reconsider" so these supporters feel loved. 

[Urstadt]

It is NOT your place to say if it was too harsh. This is the stewardship and prerogative of others.

 

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?

 

I will do my best to provide some kind of a response. But, I am also trying to back off. Your response, TFP, was a little more aggressive than I would have liked. Perhaps you didn't mean that way? But, in the interest of being careful, I am going to continue to be mindful of my own actions. But your post does beg for a response. So, I will do my best while trying to be brief.

 

To start off, I do have a testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Joseph Smith is a prophet and the church is led today by prophetic revelation. I hope no one fears otherwise about me. :)

 

Secondly, just paint a bigger picture here, my mind wanders. It's what makes me an effective counselor. And, I administer counseling the way Elder Oaks said in an official statement about the Church's position on counseling: which is to use evidenced-based approaches and to think critically and openly, more importantly, dialogically and contextually. I am not always saying that I am right. And, I certainly apologize to the people of LDS.net if I came across as sounding like the authority on the situation. As you accurately pointed out, that isn't my place. (I only ask that you remember your own counsel when you pass judgment on Kate's behaviors or my personal likening of the scriptures unto myself).

 

So, as I say things on here, I am merely letting my mind wander, attempting to think critically, take in all of the facts. I'm merely exploring. In counseling we refer to this as dialogically relating to others. It's my best attempt at being Christ-like, which I wish I was better at. However, if this is not the time, or members on here would rather me take this some place else, I am more than happy to refrain as it is not my wish to upset anybody.

 

As for some of your comments about comparing history, the Constitution, or sports teams to the church, your rules of logic are sound when you challenge my comparisons. But, any logitician will be the first to tell you that the philosophical backdrop or theoretical standpoint being articulated in such analogies cannot always be challenged with the rules and mathematical formulas of logic. They can only be ascertained via sustained, ongoing moral discourse, which is why there are different forms of logic that would adequately explain/justify my comparisons. I was trying to make a theoretical point (Read Charles Taylor, To Follow A Rule) with my analogies that would require further discourse.

 

Anyway. I look forward to conversing with the folks here at lds.net on other issues. :)

[FiveNine]

It doesn't seem like excommunicated LDS get the spotlight very often, and she seems to be basking in it for her week worth of fame before she fades and attention is drawn elsewhere. She knew what she was doing, no excuses. Now she will either repent and down the road return or move on.

[pam]

It doesn't seem like excommunicated LDS get the spotlight very often, and she seems to be basking in it for her week worth of fame before she fades and attention is drawn elsewhere. She knew what she was doing, no excuses. Now she will either repent and down the road return or move on.

It's because most who are excommunicated keep it private.  She made it public herself by going to the media.

[FiveNine]

It's because most who are excommunicated keep it private.  She made it pubhs lic herself by going to the media.

She is doing so for the personal gain then, clearly she wants her name and her movement out there for all to see and look into. Its like that guy who posted the videos on YouTube of ordinances in the Salt Lake Temple that he took with a hidden camera. Trying to slander the church when in reality it simply brings more attention to the faith in general, along with curious investigators to the awesome hardworking missionaries.

[The Folk Prophet]

I will do my best to provide some kind of a response. But, I am also trying to back off. This response was a little more aggressive than I would have liked. Perhaps you didn't mean that way? But, in the interest of being careful, I am going to continue to be mindful. But your post does beg for a response. So, I will do my best while trying to be brief.

 

To start off, I do have a testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Joseph Smith is a prophet and the church is led today by prophetic revelation. I hope no one fears otherwise about me. :)

 

Secondly, just paint a bigger picture here, my mind wanders. It's what makes me an effective counselor. And, I administer counseling the way Elder Oaks said in an official statement about the Church's position on counseling: which is to use evidenced-based approaches and to think critically and openly, more importantly, dialogically and contextually. I am not always saying that I am right. And, I certainly apologize to the people of LDS.net if I came across as sounding like the authority on the situation. As you accurately pointed out, that isn't my place. (I only ask that you remember your own counsel when you pass judgment on Kate's behaviors or my personal likening of the scriptures unto myself).

 

So, as I say things on here, I am merely letting my mind wander, attempting to think critically, take in all of the facts. I'm merely exploring. In counseling we refer to this as dialogically relating to others. It's my best attempt at being Christ-like, which I wish I was better at. However, if this is not the time, or members on here would rather me take this some place else, I am more than happy to refrain as it is not my wish to upset anybody.

 

As for some of your comments about comparing history, the Constitution, or sports teams to the church, your rules of logic are sound when you challenge my comparisons. But, any logitician will be the first to tell you that the philosophical backdrop or theoretical standpoint being articulated in such analogies cannot be challenged with the rules and mathematical formulas of logical. They can only be ascertained via sustained, ongoing moral discourse. I was trying to make a theoretical point (Read Charles Taylor, To Follow A Rule) with my analogies that would require further discourse. But, I wonder if I am sensing that this isn't the time or the place. And if not, I understand.

 

I look forward to conversing with the folks here at lds.net on other issues. :)

 

Hi Urstadt,

 

I will aggressively defend what I see as attacks on the church. For that I don't apologize. What I do apologize for is harsh tone and unkindness. I know I am abrasive to some. I'm working on it.

 

I do not consider criticism of the church useful critical thinking for the same reason that I do not consider sports team leadership useful as a comparison. This is God's church. It is led by Him. The spirit guides His leaders. The organization and the directives concerning it are not based on someone's be-your-best-business-self best-seller. God leads this church. It is His work, and His work will move forward. As Joseph Smith said, "The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear; till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done."

 

Concerning "exploring" and "dialogically relating to others", is an aggressive differing of opinions not a valid outcome? Seems to me that's as legitimate a part of the process as any.

[Maureen]

I'm getting sick of all these blog posts demanding we show love and fellowship for these supporters.  Not because we shouldn't show love and fellowship, but because every single blog posts demands we consider their point of view. 

 

I considered it.  I don't like it. I'm not going to "reconsider" so these supporters feel loved. 

 

Here's an article right from lds.net itself. Bonnie Oscarson has a message of compassion.

 

http://lds.net/blog/faith/lds-young-womens-leader-calls-compassion-new-video/

 

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's an article right from lds.net itself. Bonnie Oscarson has a message of compassion.

 

http://lds.net/blog/faith/lds-young-womens-leader-calls-compassion-new-video/

 

M.

In some quarters of the bloggernacle, Oscarson is coming under fire for daring to suggest that an excommunication is due to the excommunicant's (is that even a word? It should be a word) own actions.

[Jamie123]

Remaining true to oneself is not a gospel principle.

 

No, it's a Shakespeare principle :) I've met other people who've wrongly attributed the words of Polonius to Jesus. They do have that kind of ring!

 

Nevertheless, being "true to oneself" has to be the starting point. We believe in God/scripture/Church, not because they are God/scrripture/Church, but because we believe within ourselves that they are true. If Sister Kelly is being true to her genuine, honest convictions and is willing to suffer consequences (just as Luther, Ghandi, Socrates, St. Paul and many others did) then good luck to her!

[Backroads]

Here's an article right from lds.net itself. Bonnie Oscarson has a message of compassion.

 

http://lds.net/blog/faith/lds-young-womens-leader-calls-compassion-new-video/

 

M.

 

Once again, suggesting that in order to have compassion and love for someone I have to consider their point of view.  Yes, I saw the video. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Jamie -

Yes and no. The sum and essence of Mormonism is that you love God more than self; and that if God asks you to change yourself--you do it.

[The Folk Prophet]

No, it's a Shakespeare principle  :) I've met other people who've wrongly attributed the words of Polonius to Jesus. They do have that kind of ring!

 

Nevertheless, being "true to oneself" has to be the starting point. We believe in God/scripture/Church, not because they are God/scrripture/Church, but because we believe within ourselves that they are true. If Sister Kelly is being true to her genuine, honest convictions and is willing to suffer consequences (just as Luther, Ghandi, Socrates, St. Paul and many others did) then good luck to her!

 

It is not the starting point. The first principle of the gospel is faith. The greatest commandment is to love God. And blessings are predicated on obedience. To thine own self be true just isn't in the mix there.

 

Matthew 10:39 - He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

[slamjet]

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.

[Guest]

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 have a different take on this one.  I say this to my 12-year-old all the time... You need to be true to yourself... I don't refer to his mortal body or his mortal state.  That's not his eternal self.  His SPIRIT is who he is.  Who he is, is a child of God and he needs to be true to that and the Priesthood which he holds.

 

So, say he goes and does stupid things with his friends... I tell him - that's not who you are.  And he stops being stupid... because his spirit, as a child of God, is not stupid.

[The Folk Prophet]

I have a different take on this one.  I say this to my 12-year-old all the time... You need to be true to yourself... I don't refer to his mortal body or his mortal state.  That's not his eternal self.  His SPIRIT is who he is.  Who he is, is a child of God and he needs to be true to that and the Priesthood which he holds.

 

So, say he goes and does stupid things with his friends... I tell him - that's not who you are.  And he stops being stupid... because his spirit, as a child of God, is not stupid.

 

Anatess! We agree!!!  Yay!

 

Yeah...I can get behind this idea of it.

[ACommonMan]

I had a conversation with a friend last night. Following her divorce, she decided to take up drinking. (the odd logic involved in that decision is relevant to my point, so I am not going to go into that) One of her comments was that she still believes the church is true but, that she is following a path she feels like she needs right now to better understand herself and become a better person after it's over.

 

She has the right to question herself and just how much the gospel means to her. As long as that stays private, she will likely just face chastisement from her bishop and removal of the blessings of the temple and sacrament, (remember, partaking of the sacrament when one is not truly repentant is a further damnation, so that particular probationary step is a beneficial reminder and not a punishment at all)

 

If, however, my friend begins to go around publicly stating that moderate drinking is not problem and that the Word of Wisdom should be repealed, or at least amended, then her bishop can no longer just lovingly counsel her and hope she comes around. If she begins to imply that many church members agree with her or that even her own bishop has not reprimanded her for it, then the church would HAVE take a stronger position with her.

 

I feel confident that many people privately spoke with President Kimball about their desires for Blacks to hold the priesthood. I'm sure that's part of why it weighed on his mind enough for him to plead with The Lord on the topic. I am equally certain that if one of those same individuals had publicly called the prophet less inspired on the topic than he himself was, he would also have found himself under church discipline.

[Jamie123]

It is not the starting point. The first principle of the gospel is faith. The greatest commandment is to love God. And blessings are predicated on obedience. To thine own self be true just isn't in the mix there.

 

Matthew 10:39 - He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

 

You talk as though it were either-or. If you love God, are you not being true to yourself when you obey him? Perhaps Kate Kelly is being obedient to God according to her own understanding, and being true to her own self in the process.

[slamjet]

I have a different take on this one.  I say this to my 12-year-old all the time... You need to be true to yourself... I don't refer to his mortal body or his mortal state.  That's not his eternal self.  His SPIRIT is who he is.  Who he is, is a child of God and he needs to be true to that and the Priesthood which he holds.

 

So, say he goes and does stupid things with his friends... I tell him - that's not who you are.  And he stops being stupid... because his spirit, as a child of God, is not stupid.

 

<EDIT: I believe I didn't read this correctly the first time, but I'll leave my post just because I want to try to sound intelligent>

 

Then it would be more accurate to say "remember who you are" instead of "remember what you are."  "Who he is" is different than "what he is."

 

In Nephi's lamentations, in my understanding, he separates the flesh and the spirit.  He laments that his flesh is so prone to sin that it pains him, but his spirit is filled with the joy of Christ; the difference between what he is vs who he is.  I may be getting stuck in the semantics but what I am is a carnal person who is very capable of some pretty egregious sins but who I am is a person who has grabbed hold of the Atonement and risen above the sins of my past.  It's the difference between the flesh and the spirit.

 

I've spoken with addicts who have a wall because they can only see themselves as what they are, addicts.  It's a life-changing moment when they realize they are more than what they are, who they are is a person who is perfectly capable of rising above their addictions once they learn to trust God. 

 

So, to me, what and who are two wholly separate states of being that matters.

[Jamie123]

Jamie -

Yes and no. The sum and essence of Mormonism is that you love God more than self; and that if God asks you to change yourself--you do it.

 

Indeed, but if you are in harmony with God then being true to yourself and lovng God more than yourself become one and the same thing. Maybe Kate Kelly has some insight which at the present time the "official" church leadership lacks. I can't help but think of Luther standing up against the Catholic Church, or John Bunyan against the established protestant church which claimed he had "no calling". Both these men are revered today. Of course, if you think Mormon leadership is infallible then neither of these comparisons apply, but the principle remains that there is no either/or about being true to yourself and being true to God.

 

Afterthought: I can't help comparing this to people who beat the phrase "...they did what was right in their own eyes..." around the heads of those with different moral or theological positions. What they are really saying is that their opponents should do what is right in their eyes instead of their own.