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

[Just_A_Guy]

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. Or maybe not. But there is certainly no either/or about being true to yourself and being true to God.

 

Granted, but we aren't always the most objective determinants of whether we are, in fact, "in harmony with God".  For the purposes of this particular discussion it should be pointed out that as far as believing Mormons are concerned, a person's excommunication is prima facie (though not irrefutable) evidence that that person is not truly in harmony with God.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

 

There is no being true to God according to our own understanding. There is only being true to God or not.

 

Truth is truth. It is not relative. Morality is not relative. God defines right and wrong. If our understanding is mistaken it is not an honorable thing? It's just mistaken.

 

Pretty much every evil person throughout history was doing what they personally felt was right. We can throw out examples of Ghandi and Luther but we could just as easily throw out HItler and Stalin. You gonna stick with the, "I'm just being true to myself" defense in those cases?

[Backroads]

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". Of course if you think Mormon leadership is infallible then neither of these comparisons applies, 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 to their own. What they are really saying is that their opponents should do what is right in their eyes.

 

EDITED:

 

Okay, let's pretend she has some insight the Church leaders do not have at this time (though I believe the ultimate insight would come through the prophet).  Maybe someday she will be hailed as a righteous leader before her time.

 

However, that's not the issue here.

 

The problem is she did not handle things correctly.  She could have been offering a magical potion that will end world hunger and give everyone a free puppy, but if she didn't go through the proper channel and refused to accept all responses to her offer of free puppies I would still say she handled things incorrectly.

[The Folk Prophet]

She does not have insight that the church leaders do not. That is specifically prescripted as against the order of God.

[Jamie123]

(Posted in error - still trying to get the hang of this new forum)

[Backroads]

She does not have insight that the church leaders do not. That is specifically prescripted as against the order of God.

 

Exactly. I was just playing devil's advocate.

[The Folk Prophet]

Exactly. I was just playing devil's advocate.

 

By way of scriptural support: D&C 28

 

 6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;

 7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

 

and

 

 12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

[Backroads]

I know. I get it. You have told me nothing I do not already know and whole-heartedly believe.  You obviously didn't read my post.  Would you prefer I edit it?

[Jamie123]

Deleted: I won't continue to argue with Folk Prophet. Pursuing this kind of logic usually gets a thread stopped by the moderators.

[The Folk Prophet]

I know. I get it. You have told me nothing I do not already know and whole-heartedly believe.  You obviously didn't read my post.  Would you prefer I edit it?

 

You're responding like I was arguing with you. I am not. You said "Exactly" and I was further supporting that with scripture. If you had said "Boloney" instead, I can see it coming across like a debate. Not sure why you took it that way. 

[Jamie123]

OK - just one question I can't let drop unanswered:

 

Pretty much every evil person throughout history was doing what they personally felt was right. We can throw out examples of Ghandi and Luther but we could just as easily throw out HItler and Stalin. You gonna stick with the, "I'm just being true to myself" defense in those cases?

 

No I would not - and neither would you (I hope) accept the "obeying God" defence of the terrorists who flew planes into the WTC. Why not? Because (according to you) their God is a "false god". Well maybe they think your God is a false god too - after all He is the same God who ordered Joshua to butcher the entire population of Jericho. Where is the difference?

 

[i'm not saying this to be offensive. It is a serious matter which genuinely worries me.]

 

But that is rather aside from what we're discussing. My point is that a person acting true to him or herself is not - by necessity - acting in opposition to God. Stalin was certainly an atheist, so he is a poor example. Hitler was baptized a Roman Catholic, but I don't believe he had any serious faith in God, so he is not really applicable either. Certainly neither of them can be "thrown out" (as you put it) as examples of what I mean.

[Backroads]

You're responding like I was arguing with you. I am not. You said "Exactly" and I was further supporting that with scripture. If you had said "Boloney" instead, I can see it coming across like a debate. Not sure why you took it that way. 

 

Oh, I understand now.  Thanks for the explanation.

 

I did interpret that response as trying to drive a point at me. 

[Jamie123]

The problem is she did not handle things correctly.  She could have been offering a magical potion that will end world hunger and give everyone a free puppy, but if she didn't go through the proper channel and refused to accept all responses to her offer of free puppies I would still say she handled things incorrectly.

 

Sorry Backroads - I've rather ignored you because of my bickering with Folk Prophet. I've perhaps leapt into this discussion without reading both sides of the issue (my knowledge of it is based entirely on Kelly's blog). It's always good to look at both sides before talking.

 

I'm interested though - it's a long long time since I read the B of M, but wasn't there a part where some non-priesthood-holding Lamanite stood on a wall and preached to the corrupt Nephites (who were presumably still on the "historically correct" side) while they fired arrows at him - or some such thing? What would you see as the difference between him and Kate Kelly? (I apologize if this is a stupid and ill-informed question).

[The Folk Prophet]

...because of my bickering with Folk Prophet.

 

Just curious. Have you considered that your view of it as merely "bickering" might just be influencing your interpretations of my points? Just curious. I am not just bickering. I'm trying to uphold gospel principles, morality, doctrine, and righteousness.

[ACommonMan]

My point is that a person acting true to him or herself is not - by necessity - acting in opposition to God. Stalin was certainly an atheist, so he is a poor example. Hitler was baptized a Roman Catholic, but I don't believe he had any serious faith in God, so he is not really applicable either. Certainly neither of them can be "thrown out" (as you put it) as examples of what I mean.

 

I Hitler, for one, is a great examples of the larger discussion. He was NOT acting in accordance to his Catholic faith. The catholic church would have every right to excommunicate him. While Ms. Kelly's actions were not even closely on par with Hitler, she fundamentally did the same thing. She rejected one of the core principles of the restored gospel. She thought that she could pressure the prophet to go against God's will. Even if her core belief was that President Monson was somehow oblivious to God's will, as she believes in her heart God's will to be, she has already begun separating herself from the LDS gospel. She's forming her own church and wanting the LDS church to bend to her, rather than the other way around.

 

I greatly appreciate SlamJet's open and honest communication about his own excommunication. If he is like others I know, he fully appreciates today that this really is the first step back. Until Kate releases her own pride, she is not going to be able to see the distinction. That is not a judgement against her as much as it is a general observation. We can discuss and debate gender inequalities in the church. (I want a nice sofa or recliner in the men's restrooms) But riling up more than 1000 supposedly active LDS women to think that a lack of priesthood responsibilty is demeaning to them is causing more than just her to question the church as a whole but, pulling others away as well. That is the grounds for this church action. I don't think we should lose sight of that.

[skippy740]

One bishop's account on how an excommunication decision is reached:

 

http://www.allenwyatt.com/blog/excommunication/

[Guest]

Anatess! We agree!!!  Yay!

 

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

 

Oh my... I think I'm gonna have a heart attack!

 

LOL...

 

Actually, we have more in common than we don't... we just like to hash out the don'ts... lol.  Which can be fun!

[Jamie123]

I Hitler, for one, is a great examples of the larger discussion. He was NOT acting in accordance to his Catholic faith. The catholic church would have every right to excommunicate him.

 

Exactly - which is why I said he was a poor example. Luther and Hitler were both Catholic apostates, but while Luther's apostasy was (as he saw it) obedience to God, Hitler's was in obedience to some kind of pseudo-Wagnerian nationalism.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that you cannot divorce obediene to God with doing what you feel is right - as though the two were somehow in automatic opposition. When you were baptized into (I take it) the LDS faith, were you not "doing what you felt was right" - based upon the feelings you got when you prayed over Moroni's promise?

[The Folk Prophet]

Actually, we have more in common than we don't... 

 

Agreed. :)

[Jamie123]

Just curious. Have you considered that your view of it as merely "bickering" might just be influencing your interpretations of my points? Just curious. I am not just bickering. I'm trying to uphold gospel principles, morality, doctrine, and righteousness.

 

I was not serious in my use of the word "bickering". We are - I hope - having a sensible and mature discussion :)

[estradling75]

 

 

I'm interested though - it's a long long time since I read the B of M, but wasn't there a part where some non-priesthood-holding Lamanite stood on a wall and preached to the corrupt Nephites (who were presumably still on the "historically correct" side) while they fired arrows at him - or some such thing? What would you see as the difference between him and Kate Kelly? (I apologize if this is a stupid and ill-informed question).

 

 

This is an assumption that many like to make...  But they can't an anyway prove from the Text that he was not a priesthood holding faithful leader of the Church.  Not any more then we can prove that he was...  But let give some context...  By the time of Samuel the Lamanite there had been a conversion among the Lamanites and churches (with the relevant authority given)  established among them... therefore its quite possible he was indeed authoritative.

 

Samuel was right and prophetic, clearly called of God.  So the question becomes how does a person become called of God to do so.  The LDS believe that God is a God of order, and if God has a Church and that church has a mortal leader then God will work through that mortal leader to give is word to the entire church.  Anything else would be chaos.  Since we believe we are God's church and that God has given us a mortal leader then the God's direction for the church as a whole will come top down through the leaders, and not bottom up through the members agitating change.

[The Folk Prophet]

Exactly - which is why I said he was a poor example.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that you cannot divorce obediene to God with doing what you feel is right - as though the two were somehow in automatic opposition. When you were baptized into (I take it) the LDS faith, were you not "doing what you felt was right" - based upon the feelings you got when you prayed over Moroni's promise?

 

See now, I don't totally disagree with this. I think it's incomplete. You "can" divorce it in cases, and should, but it is not always divorced. Clearly our feelings are highly related.

 

My point is that our self interest ought not be the prime catalyst for determining right and wrong.

 

If you'd stop responding to what I say with a defensive, we're-just-bickering, p.o.v. maybe you'd find we have some understanding that can actually be shared.

[Guest]

This is an assumption that many like to make...  But they can't an anyway prove from the Text that he was not a priesthood holding faithful leader of the Church.  Not any more then we can prove that he was...  But let give some context...  By the time of Samuel the Lamanite there had been a conversion among the Lamanites and churches (with the relevant authority given)  established among them... therefore its quite possible he was indeed authoritative.

 

Samuel was right and prophetic, clearly called of God.  So the question becomes how does a person become called of God to do so.  The LDS believe that God is a God of order, and if God has a Church and that church has a mortal leader then God will work through that mortal leader to give is word to the entire church.  Anything else would be chaos.  Since we believe we are God's church and that God has given us a mortal leader then the God's direction for the church as a whole will come top down through the leaders, and not bottom up through the members agitating change.

 

And in addition...

 

If in this case, Kelly is right and the prophets are wrong... then Kelly should start her own church because the prophets are not true prophets.

 

But, as is the case of blacks and the priesthood, there is right, and there is right right now.  Two completely different things.

 

If Kelly truly believes in the Church as being the True Church, then she knows that her personal revelation of the order of the Priesthood (regardless of whether it is the correct principle or not) does not trump the revelation of the Prophets in administering the keys.

 

Therefore, the chaotic instigation of change that Kelly is doing is plain and simply a lack of faith/testimony in the authority of the Prophets.  And thus, she needs to either find the true authority somewhere else, or she gets to ponder it some more.  In the meantime, her excommunication not only protects her but protects the Church from chaos.

[The Folk Prophet]

If Kelly truly believes in the Church as being the True Church, then she knows that her personal revelation of the order of the Priesthood (regardless of whether it is the correct principle or not) does not trump the revelation of the Prophets in administering the keys.

 

In the spirit of God not being one of chaos, I really can't see where He'd inspire one member that women should have the priesthood against what He's telling the prophet. That seems pretty chaotic to me.

[Backroads]

In the spirit of God not being one of chaos, I really can't see where He'd inspire one member that women should have the priesthood against what He's telling the prophet. That seems pretty chaotic to me.

 

One would think all those inspired on the matter would be more or less on the same page...