Letter from the Office of the First Presidency

[Windseeker]

I find this pretty insulting.  My faith in Christ is thriving and unchallenged.  My faith in temporal organizations is unchanged...they often suck.  Welcome to humanity.

 

But please stop assuming that frustration with how public affairs are handled is synonymous with a crisis or trial of faith.  That's one of those things I can't stand about mormons.

 

Does "temporal" organization include Goverment? ...because you always struck me as a huge fan. 

[Urstadt]

1. How exactly Kate Kelly taught false doctrine?

 

2. How exactly she was in public opposition to the Church or its leaders?

 

 

 

1.  I don't think the false doctrine claim fits here.

 

2.  When she was told "no, you  may not be ordained" she kept pushing.  I think her Church leaders viewed her connection with the media has making the Church look bad.  Thus, opposing the Church.

 

My understanding is that she wasn't preaching any false doctrine. I haven't seen anything on the OW website that was false doctrine. There is a statement about how a person must hold an office in the Priesthood in order to gain salvation, which is clearly false doctrine. But, a statement like that alone is nothing compared to the Adam-God theory, which came from a prophet, seer, and revelator, and has since been rebuked in later times. It is also nothing compared to The Seer, by Orson Pratt, an apostle, which is chalk full of false doctrine. So much so that my mission president didn't let us read it. Neither President Young nor Elder Pratt were ever excommunicated. My point here is not to be contentious, but rather to point out that I think both Suzie and Pam are right: There was little-to-no false doctrine being preached, but this wasn't so much the driving rationale behind excommunicating her.

 

All of what I have said is according to my current udnerstanding, though.

 

"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.

 

I agree with Suzie on this about a dogmatic, end-of-discussion does not lead to meaningful dialogue and proper conflict resolution. What I think of the matter is irrelevant per my lack of ecclesiastical authority. But, I can see plausible alternatives to dealing with this. Whether or not they were utilized, who knows? I only know that that church warned her to cease and desist, she didn't, more warnings were given, and a consequence transpired.

 

(Philadelphia Eagles)

 

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.  

 

As mentioned above, I believe her actions were more the issue. I'm sympathetic to Kate's concerns and even I struggle with her trying to interrupt General Conference... twice. However, from what I can tell from reading numerous profiles on OW, I get the impression that Kate didn't really "proselytize" her beliefs. The men and women who related to her already shared those beliefs, as evidenced by many of them claiming that they had felt that way their whole lives. But, that's just my guess.

 

Does the Church claim they asked the Lord if women can hold the Priesthood? I don't get that impression at all.

 

 

I'm with Suzie on this. Has the First Presidency ever said since OW began that they have taken female ordination to the Lord in prayer and received a No answer; or have they come out and said that they do not wish to enquire of the Lord just yet?

 

M.

 

 

The quote of Hinckley on mormon.org comes from an interview, where right after he said:

 

"RB: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

GBH: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?

GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.

 

So if more women in the Church seek for female ordination, will the Church consider it somehow? Back then OW was not in existence, now things seem to be a little different and there is definetly "agitation" for that...

 

This is a notion I can't deny or escape in my own private ponderings. To my knowledge, no statement has been made explicitly stating, "We prayed and asked Heavenly Father if women should have the priesthood and He said, 'No.'" Please, don't misunderstand me: I am not saying anything more than just that I am not aware of any such statement and that that fact is inescapable during my private ponderings. Beyond that, I'm trying to KISS.

 

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).  

 

According to some research shown to me by some of my friends in the church, upwards of 90% of the women in the church agree with these sentiments in their entirety and completeness.

 

To me that's kind of like demanding the Prophet to pray about and then come back and report.

 

So is that the next protest at General Conference?

 

I agree that we shouldn't be demanding of the Prophet. However, the scriptures are filled with instances of the fold going to prophet and asking him to ask Heavenly Father for an answer. I just taught my 10-11 year old primary class the story of the brass serpant yesterday. The Israelites asked Moses to inquire of the Lord and he did. Many of Joseph Smith's revelations came from questions being asked of him by the members. So, I do believe there is a balance there. And, I really don't think anyone on these forums disagrees with that. I think most people just generally have a very different notion of where that balance is. Which is fine.

 

I'm sorry, but the church leadership has left far more unanswered questions than they have answered.  To me, it feels like they have gone into the business of creating ambiguity.  And I'm frustrated by it.

 

I think many of us have this thought enter our minds at one time or another, regardless of what we choose to do about it. I have attended psychotherapy conferences in Utah where the presenting psycholgists talk briefly about the many members who have stated in therapy that they feel lost, have more questions than answers, and being told, "Read the scriptures and pray about it," helps them through such moments but doesn't really make the problem go away. I talk to other Mormon therapists who have experienced this many times. My point is not that there is a real problem here. I am not saying that at all. Rather, I am just saying that there is a great many, good and faithful, church-attending members who can relate to this. Many times, I'm one of them.

[pam]

My understanding is that she wasn't preaching any false doctrine. I haven't seen anything on the OW website that was false doctrine. There is a statement about how a person must hold an office in the Priesthood in order to gain salvation, which is clearly false doctrine. But, a statement like that alone is nothing compared to the Adam-God theory, which came from a prophet, seer, and revelator, and has since been rebuked in later times. It is also nothing compared to The Seer, by Orson Pratt, an apostle, which is chalk full of false doctrine. So much so that my mission president didn't let us read it. Neither President Young nor Elder Pratt were ever excommunicated. My point here is not to be contentious, but rather to point out that I think both Suzie and Pam are right: There was little-to-no false doctrine being preached, but this wasn't so much the driving rationale behind excommunicating her.

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear since my name came up.  I never said that she wasn't teaching false doctrine.

[The Folk Prophet]

I find this pretty insulting.  My faith in Christ is thriving and unchallenged.  My faith in temporal organizations is unchanged...they often suck.  Welcome to humanity.

 

But please stop assuming that frustration with how public affairs are handled is synonymous with a crisis or trial of faith.  That's one of those things I can't stand about mormons.

 

Wait. So questions can have implications beyond, "We're just asking"...?

[The Folk Prophet]

My understanding is that she wasn't preaching any false doctrine. I haven't seen anything on the OW website that was false doctrine. There is a statement about how a person must hold an office in the Priesthood in order to gain salvation, which is clearly false doctrine. But, a statement like that alone is nothing compared to the Adam-God theory, which came from a prophet, seer, and revelator, and has since been rebuked in later times. It is also nothing compared to The Seer, by Orson Pratt, an apostle, which is chalk full of false doctrine. So much so that my mission president didn't let us read it. Neither President Young nor Elder Pratt were ever excommunicated. My point here is not to be contentious, but rather to point out that I think both Suzie and Pam are right: There was little-to-no false doctrine being preached, but this wasn't so much the driving rationale behind excommunicating her.

 

All of what I have said is according to my current udnerstanding, though.

 

The obvious implication, to me, is that the false doctrine is that women should be ordained, which Kate Kelly very clearly taught.

 

I agree with Suzie on this about a dogmatic, end-of-discussion does not lead to meaningful dialogue and proper conflict resolution. What I think of the matter is irrelevant per my lack of ecclesiastical authority. But, I can see plausible alternatives to dealing with this.

 

We have no idea what sort of dialogue, meaningful or otherwise, that was had with Kelly.

 

However, from what I can tell from reading numerous profiles on OW, I get the impression that Kate didn't really "proselytize" her beliefs. The men and women who related to her already shared those beliefs, as evidenced by many of them claiming that they had felt that way their whole lives. But, that's just my guess.

 

Really. So the six "discussion" tracts are not for proselytizing? The media coverage is not for proselytizing? The profiles themselves (and the site that hosts them) is not for proselytizing?

 

This is a notion I can't deny or escape in my own private ponderings. To my knowledge, no statement has been made explicitly stating, "We prayed and asked Heavenly Father if women should have the priesthood and He said, 'No.'" Please, don't misunderstand me: I am not saying anything more than just that I am not aware of any such statement and that that fact is inescapable during my private ponderings. Beyond that, I'm trying to KISS..

 

So wait...let's break this down. We believe that the church is led by revelation. We believe that revelation comes from sincere inquiry through prayer. But we believe our leaders are NOT sincerely praying?

 

To me it is a question so ridiculous that it simply doesn't need to be answered. It is petulant and childish? Did they pray about it? Duh. Of course they did, are, and do. They cannot lead this church without revelation and they KNOW IT. The very idea that they aren't constantly on their knees, daily, hourly, and persistently in their hearts striving to know and do the will of God is so ludicrous that I can hardly believe the question is being asked.

 

The question is very obviously meant as a politicking attack against an answer that is not liked.

 

I agree that we shouldn't be demanding of the Prophet. However, the scriptures are filled with instances of the fold going to prophet and asking him to ask Heavenly Father for an answer.

 

Did you miss that in most of those instances the "fold" was iniquitous, and the result was death, destruction, famine, plague, reprimand, and extermination? Particularly with the Israelites. Hardly a prime example of a faithful, righteous fold who trusted their prophet and the Lord. (See my post above on Numbers Chapter 16).

[Urstadt]

Just to be clear since my name came up.  I never said that she wasn't teaching false doctrine.

 

I know. :) I was building off of your comment that it seems like false doctrine wasn't so much the issue as her actions. I am in complete agreement with you.

[FunkyTown]

 

Did you miss that in most of those instances the "fold" was iniquitous, and the result was death, destruction, famine, plague, reprimand, and extermination? Particularly with the Israelites. Hardly a prime example of a faithful, righteous fold who trusted their prophet and the Lord. (See my post above on Numbers Chapter 16).

 

 

That's a red herring, Folk. In the bible, MOST of the time the followers of God were stiff-necked.

 

Asking the prophet to pray about something isn't wrong. People asked Joseph Smith all the time for everything from receiving the Priesthood(Which was granted) to Oliver Cowdery(Which was not quite so happy an occasion).

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting the Priesthood. If asked in the right spirit, it's a righteous desire. Otherwise, Joseph Smith would never have been granted it.

[Urstadt]

The obvious implication, to me...

 

The obvious implication, to me, is that the false doctrine is that women should be ordained, which Kate Kelly very clearly taught.

 

Did she preach it as some form of doctrine from the Lord, Almighty? Or was it merely her opinion? Because I am not Heavenly Father and am unaware of the intentions of the hearts of others. I do know, however, that Elder Orson Pratt shared a lot of his beliefs in The Seer, which was emphatically dismissed as false doctrine. Was his newsletter proselytizing? Because if so, then by your logic, he proselytized false doctrine. Elder Bruce R. McConkie had an entire book edition revised due to Mark E. Peterson placing word to President David O. McKay and informing him that he counted over 700 errors and false doctrines in his book. When general authorities have addressed these issues in the past, they allude to the personal opinions of past general authorities speaking as men and not as prophets; or, they that they were speaking to the cultural influences of the times. My point is this: A person sharing an errant belief may not always be considered false doctrine, as evidenced by the assertions of the general authorities over the decades.

 

I also know that she shared her opinions and personal beliefs in the backdrop of true doctrine. That's important context there.

 

We have no idea what sort of dialogue, meaningful or otherwise, that was had with Kelly.

 

Yes, as I stated with my comment:

 

"Whether or not they were utilized, who knows? I only know that that church warned her to cease and desist, she didn't, more warnings were given, and a consequence transpired."

 

Which I noticed you removed from your quotation of what I said. I can't speak to why you removed that, only you know, but I consider myself misquoted and then told something I already said as if I didn't say it in the first place.

 

Really. So the six "discussion" tracts are not for proselytizing? The media coverage is not for proselytizing? The profiles themselves (and the site that hosts them) is not for proselytizing?

 

No, I don't. Considering that The American Heritage Dictionary defines "proselytize" as:

• To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
• To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

and, that their getting started pamphlet here, http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OW6DiscussionsGettingStartedPacket.pdf, states:

 

"Since OW’s founding, we have already seen this

organization serve as an LDS retention effort for women

who left, or were considering leaving, the Church due to

their feelings on gender inequality. OW’s existence has

let them know that they are not alone and has assured

them that there is a place for them in Mormonism even

though they have these views. OW supporters have carved

out a place in their wards and stakes, heeding President

Uchtdorf’s counsel: “There is room for you here...Come,

join with us.”

 

No, I don't consider them proselytizing. I did that for two years and never once encouraged a person to believe our doctrine while remaining in their prior faith. Futher, almost all the people who joined her website shared those beliefs previously, and you can't proselytize to someone who believes the same as you. If you have a difference of opinion, that's fine; I respect that.

 

 

So wait...let's break this down. We believe that the church is led by revelation. We believe that revelation comes from sincere inquiry through prayer. But we believe our leaders are NOT sincerely praying?

 

How you got that ^ from this:

 

"To my knowledge, no statement has been made explicitly stating, "We prayed and asked Heavenly Father if women should have the priesthood and He said, 'No.'" Please, don't misunderstand me: I am not saying anything more than just that I am not aware of any such statement and that that fact is inescapable during my private ponderings. Beyond that, I'm trying to KISS.."

 

 

is completely beyond me. I can't even follow your logic here. I never once said that I don't believe the leaders of the church don't sincerely pray, or anything remotely close to it. I was talking about official statements and not the sincere prayers of the general authorities. Your eggregiously erroneous extrapolations of my wording puts the thought in my mind that you might be doing the same thing with what Kate Kelly has said or done.

 

 

Did you miss that in most of those instances the "fold" was iniquitous, and the result was death, destruction, famine, plague, reprimand, and extermination? Particularly with the Israelites.

 

Yes, there is quite a bit of truth to this statement about the Israelites. But, not all of them were sinful, as evidenced by the fact that many of them had the humility to look upon the serpant and were healed.

 

 

Hardly a prime example of a faithful, righteous fold who trusted their prophet and the Lord.

 

Well, I did notice that you, like another quote above in this post, failed to quote the part about Joseph Smith going to the Lord when he, or others, had questions. That's very similar to how the Word of Wisdom actually came about.

_______________________________

 

TFP, I applaud your "Defender of the Faith" spirit. It's admirable. I would not be surprised if Heavenly Father is very pleased with it, too. However, I don't frequent these forums too much: 21 posts since I joined in November, which amounts to 3 posts per month; and I feel you've really gone after me twice now in one week. I appreciate your intellectual attempts and defenderism, but I find your delivery and tactics crude and contentious, as evidenced by:

 

1) taking what I say out of context,

2) misquoting me to promote your own point of view,

3) phrasing your questions and comments in ways that I take as sarcastic, condescending, and/or holier than thou,

4) erroneously misinterpreting what I am saying and then debating/arguing (whichever term you prefer) based on your illogical/erroneous interpretations of what I said,

5) admitting to attacking my comments,

6) your own admission of "working on" how you approach to and talk to people.

 

How you conduct yourself on these forums is your business. But, I would appreciate it if you would show me a little more respect on here.

 

I would not be surprised if other members on here feel the way I do about your past posts and comments. But, if that is the case, then that's between you and them.

 

Good day to you, Sir.

[The Folk Prophet]

That's a red herring, Folk. In the bible, MOST of the time the followers of God were stiff-necked.

 

How is it a red-herring? The fact that there are example after example in the scriptures that show us that murmuring against the prophets is a bad idea is entirely relevant. A strong desire to ignore those examples because they hurt "the cause" does not make it a red-herring. And the fact that not every time the prophet was asked to pray was evil doesn't mean the other examples are red-herrings.

 

There is a distinct difference between asking for something in humility, and faith and clamoring as a "fold", rising up against the prophet and the word of God, politicking for change based on the popular (or what one desires to become popular) opinion. Scriptural examples of both are available.

 

Look at Numbers 16:3. Here's there request:

 

"And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?"

 

Sound familiar? One might easily replace it with the Ordain Women "questions":

 

"And they gathered themselves together against President Monson and against The Twelve, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the women are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the women of the Lord?"

 

The Lord's response to the question (vs 32-33):

 

"And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.

 

They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation."

 

Then in vs 41

 

"But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord."

 

may as well be:

 

"But on the morrow...the congregation of the church murmured against President Monson and against the Twelve, saying, Ye have excommunicated the people of the Lord."

 

Here's the Lord's response (vs 45 and 49):

 

"Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment."

 

"Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah."

 

This is in no way a red-herring. This is a DIRECT ensample of our day.

 

Even the example given by Urstadt works. The "fold" just asked questions. "Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread."

 

They're just asking. What could be wrong with that?

 

The Lord's response:

 

"And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died."

 

It wasn't until the people humbled themselves and admitted they were wrong that the request for a prayer on their behalf became even moderately appropriate. And even then the Lord didn't do what they asked (take away the serpents). He had Moses make the brass serpent, and the Israelites, not liking the answer that the prophet gave them refused to look.

 

How much more applicable could these scriptural examples possibly be? I don't see red-herring.

[FunkyTown]

All right. Point by point:

 

1) Murmuring against the prophet is a bad idea. Sure. But asking questions is not. You later go on to point this out. This isn't what you had said - You had said that questioning the prophet is a problem. What you had done prior to this was a red herring. Now you're engaging in moving the goal-posts which is another form of fallacy entirely.

2) There may have been some who thought this was about lifting up the Prophets above them and sought to get the Priesthood for worldly gain as per Numbers 16:3

 

Would you say that is the majority? Because I would suggest it's best to leave that decision to God. To put to you the same kind of argument you put to MOE, If you truly trust the leadership, you don't need to explain why they made the decision they did. You don't know that - Only their Priesthood leaders do, and that's the way it should be.You don't know their hearts, I don't know their hearts. It's a tragedy whenever anyone has to be excommunicated. The only thing we can do is state that they were wrong and that we love them.

 

How is it a red-herring? The fact that there are example after example in the scriptures that show us that murmuring against the prophets is a bad idea is entirely relevant. A strong desire to ignore those examples because they hurt "the cause" does not make it a red-herring. And the fact that not every time the prophet was asked to pray was evil doesn't mean the other examples are red-herrings.

 

There is a distinct difference between asking for something in humility, and faith and clamoring as a "fold", rising up against the prophet and the word of God, politicking for change based on the popular (or what one desires to become popular) opinion. Scriptural examples of both are available.

 

Look at Numbers 16:3. Here's there request:

 

"And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?"

 

Sound familiar? One might easily replace it with the Ordain Women "questions":

 

"And they gathered themselves together against President Monson and against The Twelve, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the women are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the women of the Lord?"

 

The Lord's response to the question (vs 32-33):

 

"And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.

 

They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation."

 

Then in vs 41

 

"But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord."

 

may as well be:

 

"But on the morrow...the congregation of the church murmured against President Monson and against the Twelve, saying, Ye have excommunicated the people of the Lord."

 

Here's the Lord's response (vs 45 and 49):

 

"Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment."

 

"Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah."

 

This is in no way a red-herring. This is a DIRECT ensample of our day.

 

Even the example given by Urstadt works. The "fold" just asked questions. "Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread."

 

They're just asking. What could be wrong with that?

 

The Lord's response:

 

"And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died."

 

It wasn't until the people humbled themselves and admitted they were wrong that the request for a prayer on their behalf became even moderately appropriate. And even then the Lord didn't do what they asked (take away the serpents). He had Moses make the brass serpent, and the Israelites, not liking the answer that the prophet gave them refused to look.

 

How much more applicable could these scriptural examples possibly be? I don't see red-herring.

[The Folk Prophet]

Did she preach it as some form of doctrine from the Lord, Almighty? 

 

That is not the criteria for something being "false doctrine". And people aren't excommunicated for preaching false doctrine. They are excommunicated for continuing to preach false doctrine when they have been corrected and asked to discontinue.

 

 Which I noticed you removed from your quotation of what I said. I can't speak to why you removed that, only you know, but I consider myself misquoted and then told something I already said as if I didn't say it in the first place.

 

I removed the parts that I agreed with and addressed what I saw as questionable. It has nothing to do with misquoting. You said, "end-of-discussion does not lead to meaningful dialogue and proper conflict resolution" and I am questioning that part as valid. Do we know there was an "end-of-discussion" response to Kate Kelly? The only things we know were said to her are what she has published, and there is strong evidence of deception on her part.

 

I'm not sure how my simple response to this is being taken as some sort of contentious attack.

 

 2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

 

The questions I asked clearly fall, in my mind, to fit this definition. The pamphlets, website, profiles, comments, etc., are all meant to "induce" others to espouse the doctrine. If you don't see it that way...okay. Seems fairly obvious to me though.

 

How you got that ^ from this:

 

 

is completely beyond me. I can't even follow your logic here. I never once said that I don't believe the leaders of the church don't sincerely pray, or anything remotely close to it. I was talking about official statements and not the sincere prayers of the general authorities. Your eggregiously erroneous extrapolations of my wording puts the thought in my mind that you might be doing the same thing with what Kate Kelly has said or done.

 

You seem to be under the impression that my comments were entirely and specifically addressed to you and only to you rather than a general response to the ideas being expressed on the forum. That is mistaken. I am addressing the general idea that some seem to believe that if the General Authorities didn't specifically say they prayed about it then they must not have, which is a silly idea to me. I read your post. I read that you said not to read too much into it. I thought you would understand that I was addressing the issue at large accordingly.

 

You are making it personal and thereby reading all my responses as a direct attack against you. Re-read it as expressions of general philosophy instead and maybe you can come away from it with a bit less emotional strife.

 

 Yes, there is quite a bit of truth to this statement about the Israelites. But, not all of them were sinful, as evidenced by the fact that many of them had the humility to look upon the serpant and were healed.

 

Well, I did notice that you, like another quote above in this post, failed to quote the part about Joseph Smith going to the Lord when he, or others, had questions. That's very similar to how the Word of Wisdom actually came about.

 

I addressed this in my response to Funky. Hopefully we'll have an interesting and healthy discussion concerning the matter and learn and grow from it instead of taking everything personally. Time will tell.

 

TFP, I applaud your "Defender of the Faith" spirit. It's admirable. I would not be surprised if Heavenly Father is very pleased with it, too. However, I don't frequent these forums too much: 21 posts since I joined in November, which amounts to 3 posts per month; and I feel you've really gone after me twice now in one week. I appreciate your intellectual attempts and defenderism,

 

I'm not going after you. I am responding to comments, thoughts and ideas. The fact that we do not agree on everything doesn't mean I'm out to get you. I meant no offense. If you cannot deal with the dialogue I cannot help it. These are philosophical debates, not personal.  

 

...but I find your delivery and tactics crude and contentious, as evidenced by:

 

1) taking what I say out of context,

2) misquoting me to promote your own point of view,

3) phrasing your questions and comments in ways that I take as sarcastic, condescending, and/or holier than thou,

4) erroneously misinterpreting what I am saying and then debating/arguing (whichever term you prefer) based on your illogical/erroneous interpretations of what I said,

5) admitting to attacking my comments,

6) your own admission of "working on" how you approach to and talk to people.

 

How you conduct yourself on these forums is your business. But, I would appreciate it if you would show me a little more respect on here.

 

I would not be surprised if other members on here feel the way I do about your past posts and comments. But, if that is the case, then that's between you and them.

 

Good day to you, Sir.

 

Why don't you stick to refuting my ideas, thoughts, interpretations, and logic. Addressing me as "crude" and "contentious" and generating a list of my imperfections is personal. An implication that the fact that I disagree with you means I'm not showing you respect is creating contention where none exists. Pointing out that "other members" feel the same to gang up against me and put me in my place is a low blow.

[The Folk Prophet]

All right. Point by point:

 

1) Murmuring against the prophet is a bad idea. Sure. But asking questions is not. You later go on to point this out. This isn't what you had said - You had said that questioning the prophet is a problem. What you had done prior to this was a red herring. Now you're engaging in moving the goal-posts which is another form of fallacy entirely.

2) There may have been some who thought this was about lifting up the Prophets above them and sought to get the Priesthood for worldly gain as per Numbers 16:3

 

Would you say that is the majority? Because I would suggest it's best to leave that decision to God. To put to you the same kind of argument you put to MOE, If you truly trust the leadership, you don't need to explain why they made the decision they did. You don't know that - Only their Priesthood leaders do, and that's the way it should be.You don't know their hearts, I don't know their hearts. It's a tragedy whenever anyone has to be excommunicated. The only thing we can do is state that they were wrong and that we love them.

 

We don't entirely disagree. I don't see it as moving the goal post though...I see it as you having read my meaning differently than I meant it. That may have been poor communication on my part which required clarification, but that doesn't mean I'm moving the goal post.  My support of this is in the fact that I used the word "most", rather than "all", and that I was specifically speaking of "the fold" rather than an individual. Therefore, examples like Emma going to Joseph about the Word of Wisdom do not really apply to my meaning.

 

As to asking the question being a bad idea, my view is that the intent behind asking the question matters. If asking a question is done so with humility, sincerity, and a strong desire to learn, serve, and do the will of the Lord, then yes, there's nothing wrong with asking. If asking a question is done with agenda to manipulate, humiliate, murmur, etc., then asking a question, can, indeed, be severely problematic. Intent matters.

 

I'm not claiming to know what every person's intent is. I do think Ordain Women's intent, as an organization, is fairly clear though. That doesn't mean I'm presuming the exact same intent behind everyone who wonders about women's ordination.

[Windseeker]

Doesn't the fact she didn't attend the disciplinary council itself demonstrate a lack of faith and perhaps even contempt for the authority of the Church?

 

Her actions certainly didn't match her claims of faith.

 

If it's Priesthood authority she truly sought it seemed counteractive to simultaneously repudiate it.

[Urstadt]

 

Doesn't the fact she didn't attend the disciplinary council itself demonstrate a lack of faith and perhaps even contempt for the authority of the Church?

 

 

Her actions certainly didn't match her claims of faith.

 

If it's Priesthood authority she truly sought it seemed counteractive to simultaneously repudiate it.

 

 

Kate Kelly moved to Utah a while back. Her new ward couldn't get her records from VA because some kind of hold had been placed on them. Kate sent a few emails to her bishop asking him to release her records. He never did. According to official policy of the The First Presidency, the mantle of stewardship is determined by geographical locations relative to established ward boundaries. Kate was 2/3 across the country. At least, that is what my bishop relayed to me in church yesterday. And, I consider him a dear friend.

[Windseeker]

Kate Kelly moved to Utah a while back. Her new ward couldn't get her records from VA because some kind of hold had been placed on them. Kate sent a few emails to her bishop asking him to release her records. He never did. According to official policy of the The First Presidency, the mantle of stewardship is determined by geographical locations relative to established ward boundaries. Kate was 2/3 across the country. At least, that is what my bishop relayed to me in church yesterday. And, I consider him a dear friend.

 

 

If the Stake didn't have the authority to hold the council do you think the First Presidency would allow it to go forward?

[Urstadt]

If the Stake didn't have the authority to hold the council do you think the First Presidency would allow it to go forward?

 

Yes. Official church policy is that all these matters are handled at the local level. You can check with your bishop and/or stake president about this polciy if you wish.

[Windseeker]

Yes. Official church policy is that all these matters are handled at the local level. You can check with your bishop and/or stake president about this polciy if you wish.

 

Looks like it was handled locally.

 

I traveled across the Pacific and lived two years and learned a foreign language just for the chance to serve, If my salvation was in question I'd travel to Kathmandu if asked. Guess it just wasn't worth it.

[slamjet]

Plus, the Bishop offered to Skype.  Which surprised me that she didn't take them up on that because you can record that.

[The Folk Prophet]

Plus, the Bishop offered to Skype.  Which surprised me that she didn't take them up on that because you can record that.

 

Hehe. Now I know I shouldn't...but morbid fascination sets in and...I find myself wishing she had.... No, no, no... It is private and sacred and none of my business!!!    (also...insert emoticon beating itself with stripes a la penance)

[Suzie]

 

 

Let me ask you this, Suzie--if Monson did get an answer, and it was a "no"--are you sure you want that answer presented to a solemn assembly and canonized as Official Declaration 3?

 

 

I would love if Monson comes straightforward and says they prayed about it and they got "X" answer but it didn't happen (just yet).

 

I understand your points JAG, and you know I respect you a lot and your views but I disagree in your overall view with how this issue was handled. I believe Kelly's excommunication could have been avoided if the Church engaged in a proper dialogue with her and OW.

 

As a sister in the Gospel, I feel very sad for her and her entirely family and it frustrates me, angers me and saddens me all at the same time that there are groups such as OWE who are using this opportunity to attack Kelly and say horrible things that I believe a Latter-Day Saint should never say to someone going through an excommunication process. And then we wonder where do we get the "holier than thou" perception from. We have a lot of bullies in our midst.

 

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

 

...groups such as OWE who are using this opportunity to attack Kelly...

 

Forgive me if it's obvious, but what is OWE? I couldn't find anything doing a Google search of it.

[Suzie]

 

 

 

 

Forgive me if it's obvious, but what is OWE? I couldn't find anything doing a Google search of it.

 

 Ordain Women Exposed.

[Jedi_Nephite]

I believe Kelly's excommunication could have been avoided if the Church engaged in a proper dialogue with her and OW.

Perhaps. But it seems fairly obvious that Kate Kelly was not interested in a "proper dialogue."  She was not asking a question, she was making a demand.  The Church cannot help it if Kate Kelly and her ilk chose not to listen.

 

Furthermore, why should the First Presidency have a dialogue anyway?  Dialogue works when there is room to debate, or compromise; the Gospel doesn't work that way.  However, if, by dialogue, you mean having matters of doctrine explained that people do not understand, that is what their Bishops and local leaders are for.

 

If the First Presidency has not prayed about the issue, I would guess the reason is that the spirit simply has not compelled them to do so.  So, either they felt the answer was already there, and the answer is "No."  Or, they have prayed about it and the answer is still "No."

[Just_A_Guy]

I understand your points JAG, and you know I respect you a lot and your views but I disagree in your overall view with how this issue was handled. I believe Kelly's excommunication could have been avoided if the Church engaged in a proper dialogue with her and OW.

 

I've heard more or less the same thing said about Sonia Johnson, actually--that the institutional Church more or less drove her to the tactics she wound up adopting.  What do you think a "proper dialogue" would have looked like?

 

I'm just looking at OWE's Facebook page for the first time.  Not a fan of their tone.

[Suzie]

I've heard more or less the same thing said about Sonia Johnson, actually--that the institutional Church more or less drove her to the tactics she wound up adopting.  What do you think a "proper dialogue" would have looked like?

 

I'm just looking at OWE's Facebook page for the first time.  Not a fan of their tone.

 

Something similar to what they did with Steve Benson and the interview he had with two Apostles. He went with a list of all his questions and two apostles sat down with him and went through them. Granted, he chose differently but I believe he was given a good chance. I suppose because he was the grandson of Benson himself, he had that golden opportunity.