John Dehlin (Mormon Stories) and Kate Kelly (Ordain Women) threatened with excom

[Libby]

I just found out that John Dehlin (Mormon Stories creator) and Kate Kelly (founder of "Ordain Women") are both being threatened with excommunication. Both have received a court date.

It may be a blessing in disguise, but I still feel bad for people who are forced out and not really ready to give up on the church. I think it is a much more difficult recovery, than leaving of your own accord.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/two-activists-within-mormon-church-threatened-with-excommunication.html?referrer

[Libby]

Decided this needed it's own thread.

[Libby]

http://mormonstories.org/messages-to-my-family/

"It’s a surprisingly heart-wrenching experience to tell your wife and children that you are being put on trial for apostasy by the church you love.

What I learned today is that it’s even more difficult to receive this news as the spouse or child of an alleged apostate — especially when you happen to live in a very conservative Mormon town, and will likely face considerable social stigma as a result of your father’s decisions (for no fault of your own).

The decisions I’ve made have certainly led to this week’s events. I desire no pity.

But if you have a word or two to share with my dear wife, Margi, or with our dear children (Anna, Maya, Clara, Winston) — who have born much of the brunt of my “activism” over the past nine years — please consider sharing it with them here. Perhaps it will make them feel like the sacrifices they have made — and will likely continue to make — were for a worthy cause.

It would mean the world to me. Thanks in advance."

[alanmolstad]

what is "Mormon Stories"?

[Libby]

what is "Mormon Stories"?

"Mormon Stories Podcast is an independent, therapeutic support, and quasi-pastoral podcast hosted by John Dehlin featuring interviews with scholars and others on topics of interest to Mormons experiencing crises of faith,[1] with the intention of giving listeners reasons to remain in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Stories_Podcast

I've been listening to John's podcasts for about three years, now. What I like about John is that he tries to get a broad array of opinions from all sides of an issue. He is very fair and even though he has struggled with many doubts about the church, he and his family have remained active members. This court thing will be devastating. I was surprised at this because he seemed to have a good relationship with his Stake President. I know that he was in ongoing discussions/counseling with him for several months. Not sure what happened, but things seem to have disintegrated.

[Libby]

If John and Kate are tossed out, I have a feeling there will be many to follow.

[Snow Patrol]

If John and Kate are tossed out, I have a feeling there will be many to follow.

I can see much clearer reasons for Kate Kelly's excommunication than I can for John's.

[Libby]

I can see much clearer reasons for Kate Kelly's excommunication than I can for John's.

That's interesting, because I just saw a couple of people, over on Mormon Discussions, wondering why it had taken the church so long to excommunicate John Dehlin.

I agree with you, though...in part because Kate has been staging (what the church considers) open protests in Temple Square (during conferences). They have been very civil, though and I think the church is wrong to treat it this way. Are they going to excom all of the women AND men (and there are hundreds) who would like to see the priesthood extended to women..and who voice that opinion?

[Snow Patrol]

That's interesting, because I just saw a couple of people, over on Mormon Discussions, wondering why it had taken the church so long to excommunicate John Dehlin.

I agree with you, though...in part because Kate has been staging (what the church considers) open protests in Temple Square (during conferences). They have been very civil, though and I think the church is wrong to treat it this way. Are they going to excom all of the women AND men (and there are hundreds) who would like to see the priesthood extended to women..and who voice that opinion?


If they just voice their opinions, probably not. If they organize and lead a group then I would probably say yes. I know of 3 people in my ward that have let it be known what their particular stance is on some issues. No action has been taken but they aren't out there posting on blogs, organizing walks, etc.

Kate Kelly's type of crusade raises a lot of questions for me. If she truly loves the Church, why does she want to change it so fundamentally? I don't get where someone/group that is so small wants to change something that the vast (99%+) majority are happy with. I just don't understand their thinking.

[Libby]

If they just voice their opinions, probably not. If they organize and lead a group then I would probably say yes. I know of 3 people in my ward that have let it be known what their particular stance is on some issues. No action has been taken but they aren't out there posting on blogs, organizing walks, etc.

Kate Kelly's type of crusade raises a lot of questions for me. If she truly loves the Church, why does she want to change it so fundamentally? I don't get where someone/group that is so small wants to change something that the vast (99%+) majority are happy with. I just don't understand their thinking.

I don't see extending the priesthood to women as a "fundamental" difference. Really, it would change very little, except that women would be full participants in priesthood offices and activities.

[Snow Patrol]

I don't see extending the priesthood to women as a "fundamental" difference. Really, it would change very little, except that women would be full participants in priesthood offices and activities.

So even though the Bible or Book of Mormon have not had women holding the Priesthood for over 4-5,000 years, changing now wouldn't be a fundamental change?

[RealFakeHair]

So even though the Bible or Book of Mormon have not had women holding the Priesthood for over 4-5,000 years, changing now wouldn't be a fundamental change?

I say let the women be priest, pope and preachers,and let the men play golf on sundays!

[Libby]

So even though the Bible or Book of Mormon have not had women holding the Priesthood for over 4-5,000 years, changing now wouldn't be a fundamental change?

What, exactly, would fundamentally change? Think about it.

[Libby]

I say let the women be priest, pope and preachers,and let the men play golf on sundays!

There ya go! lol

[Snow Patrol]

What, exactly, would fundamentally change? Think about it.


As I mentioned, there has never been a time during the Bible times or Book of Mormon times when women held the Priesthood. If you don't see that as a fundamental change, then I don't what would be.

Also, if 99.99% of the membership didn't want to see this kind of change, would that be a fundamental change?

[Libby]

As I mentioned, there has never been a time during the Bible times or Book of Mormon times when women held the Priesthood. If you don't see that as a fundamental change, then I don't what would be.

Also, if 99.99% of the membership didn't want to see this kind of change, would that be a fundamental change?

No, it wouldn't. A fundamental change would be, if the church did away with the priesthood, altogether...or some other major change in doctrine.

Did the church change "fundamentally", when blacks were given the priesthood?

[Snow Patrol]

No, it wouldn't. A fundamental change would be, if the church did away with the priesthood, altogether...or some other major change in doctrine.

Did the church change "fundamentally", when blacks were given the priesthood?

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think that is a doctrinal change, you don't.

[Libby]

I would see it more as an "administrative" change, than a purely doctrinal change.

[Snow Patrol]

I would see it more as an "administrative" change, than a purely doctrinal change.

I did some quick checking and I would say as possibly the only other hold out on women and priesthood, the Catholic Church believes that it is doctrine that only men hold the priesthood.

[alanmolstad]

there are a few different Christian churches that hold the position that women shall not have authority over men....

[RealFakeHair]

there are a few different Christian churches that hold the position that women shall not have authority over men....

I tell my wife that every day

[RealFakeHair]

As I mentioned, there has never been a time during the Bible times or Book of Mormon times when women held the Priesthood. If you don't see that as a fundamental change, then I don't what would be.

Also, if 99.99% of the membership didn't want to see this kind of change, would that be a fundamental change?

Book of Mormon times? You act like the Book of Mormon is a historical book instead of a work of fiction.

[Phoenix]

If they just voice their opinions, probably not. If they organize and lead a group then I would probably say yes. I know of 3 people in my ward that have let it be known what their particular stance is on some issues. No action has been taken but they aren't out there posting on blogs, organizing walks, etc.

Kate Kelly's type of crusade raises a lot of questions for me. If she truly loves the Church, why does she want to change it so fundamentally? I don't get where someone/group that is so small wants to change something that the vast (99%+) majority are happy with. I just don't understand their thinking.

The real issue, IMO, is their faith, or lack of it, and their attempts to change things they have no authority to change. Either they trust that the leaders know what they are doing, or they are no longer believers, and have no business demanding changes anyhow. When you voluntarily join a church and agree to abide by its rules, and then you decide to break those rules, you don't have room to complain when you reap the consequences of your rebellion. You knew what you were doing. You knew the rules.

[Snow Patrol]

The real issue, IMO, is their faith, or lack of it, and their attempts to change things they have no authority to change. Either they trust that the leaders know what they are doing, or they are no longer believers, and have no business demanding changes anyhow. When you voluntarily join a church and agree to abide by its rules, and then you decide to break those rules, you don't have room to complain when you reap the consequences of your rebellion. You knew what you were doing. You knew the rules.


I agree. What I can't fathom is that an extremely small group can create something and basically challenge not only the leaders of the church but go against what the vast majority of the faithful membership totally believe in? Where do they think this is right? And it isn't just church membership. It is any group that someone belongs to. If you don't like an aspect of the group, leave and start your own group.

[Phoenix]

I agree. What I can't fathom is that an extremely small group can create something and basically challenge not only the leaders of the church but go against what the vast majority of the faithful membership totally believe in? Where do they think this is right? And it isn't just church membership. It is any group that someone belongs to. If you don't like an aspect of the group, leave and start your own group.

Yes. They are trying to live 2 opposing lives--one where they are members who believe the leaders are legitimate, and one where they think the leaders are no more called of God than they are. That hardly ever ends well.

[Libby]

You know, when it comes to revelation, members are always encouraged to receive their own confirmation.

When I was still in the church, Bishop's first counselor was our GD teacher. He was a lawyer and a very bright guy. He told us that, although, individuals in the church could not implement revelation for the whole church, it does, sometimes, happen that individuals (perhaps, many at once) will become aware of revelation, intended for the whole church, that has not yet come to the attention of the "prophet". I found that very interesting. He was talking about the revelation regarding blacks in the priesthood, specifically, at that time.

If members are supposed to receive "affirmation" of all of the prophets revelations, it stands to reason that they could also receive revelation, intended for the whole church. Again, that doesn't mean they have authority to implement it, but it doesn't mean they have to keep their mouth shut about it, either....or shouldn't.

Mind you, this is purely hypothetical, on my part, at this point, but seemed worth mentioning, in defense of OW.

[Phoenix]

If your teacher actually told you that, he taught you false doctrine IMO. God runs things in a more organized way than that. If He intends to reveal something new, He knows that the way it works is that He will reveal it to His servants the prophets first. That's one of the reasons why prophets exist in the first place.

[Libby]

Okay, in protest of the possible pending excommunication of OW's founder, Kate Kelly, a protest by the MEN, supporting OW, is being planned for the October Conference.

TKH (using initials to protect iden***y) is organizing a bunch of men who will show up for Priesthood dressed in women's clothing, to stand in as proxy for the women who have not been allowed in the priesthood sessions. Now THIS should be interesting!!! LOL

TKH said, if there is any question about his gender, he is fully willing to raise his dress to prove it. lol He says, he's getting a lot of support for this, so we shall see. :)

[Snow Patrol]

You know, when it comes to revelation, members are always encouraged to receive their own confirmation.

When I was still in the church, Bishop's first counselor was our GD teacher. He was a lawyer and a very bright guy. He told us that, although, individuals in the church could not implement revelation for the whole church, it does, sometimes, happen that individuals (perhaps, many at once) will become aware of revelation, intended for the whole church, that has not yet come to the attention of the "prophet". I found that very interesting. He was talking about the revelation regarding blacks in the priesthood, specifically, at that time.

If members are supposed to receive "affirmation" of all of the prophets revelations, it stands to reason that they could also receive revelation, intended for the whole church. Again, that doesn't mean they have authority to implement it, but it doesn't mean they have to keep their mouth shut about it, either....or shouldn't.

Mind you, this is purely hypothetical, on my part, at this point, but seemed worth mentioning, in defense of OW.


If this were to happen, and I've never heard it taught, I would say that it would an affirmation in advance. It does not mean that the person should be vocal about it because just as a regular confirmation is for that particular person, something like this would be for that particular person only. What we have been taught is that a person can receive revelation for what they have stewardship over, nothing more.

[Snow Patrol]

Okay, in protest of the possible pending excommunication of OW's founder, Kate Kelly, a protest by the MEN, supporting OW, is being planned for the October Conference.

TKH (using initials to protect iden***y) is organizing a bunch of men who will show up for Priesthood dressed in women's clothing, to stand in as proxy for the women who have not been allowed in the priesthood sessions. Now THIS should be interesting!!! LOL

TKH said, if there is any question about his gender, he is fully willing to raise his dress to prove it. lol He says, he's getting a lot of support for this, so we shall see. :)


This will accomplish nothing but making those men look silly, in my opinion. The Church does not, and hasn't ever, worked this way. If they want to protest, then protest by leaving the church. I really have a hard time with those that want to change the way the church runs because it doesn't fit with their personal views. If you don't like it get out. I have a friend here at work that helped me get my *** here. He has always been on the verge of the more liberal side of things and is now questioning his beliefs in the church. His brother left the church many years ago. I have more respect for the brother that left the church then my friend who is questioning the church and wants the church to change to conform with what he feels is right.

[Phoenix]

This will accomplish nothing but making those men look silly, in my opinion. The Church does not, and hasn't ever, worked this way. If they want to protest, then protest by leaving the church. I really have a hard time with those that want to change the way the church runs because it doesn't fit with their personal views. If you don't like it get out. I have a friend here at work that helped me get my *** here. He has always been on the verge of the more liberal side of things and is now questioning his beliefs in the church. His brother left the church many years ago. I have more respect for the brother that left the church then my friend who is questioning the church and wants the church to change to conform with what he feels is right.

It's the current fashion statement among liberals theses days: Occupy Wall Street, or occupy whatever, in order to get your way. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't usually work. Just ask the Israelites who wanted Moses to change Judaism to accommodate calf-worship. It didn't end well for them because God usually doesn't give in to peer pressure from His chosen people, especially when the change they are whining for is inappropriate. Churches that surrender to such extortion often end up as an afterthought in history.

[Libby]

It's the current fashion statement among liberals theses days: Occupy Wall Street, or occupy whatever, in order to get your way. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't usually work. Just ask the Israelites who wanted Moses to change Judaism to accommodate calf-worship. It didn't end well for them because God usually doesn't give in to peer pressure from His chosen people, especially when the change they are whining for is inappropriate. Churches that surrender to such extortion often end up as an afterthought in history.

I would definitely question the idea that the changes is inappropriate. Inappropriate until the prophet has a revelation.

I've talked to many of these women. They are not "rebels"...not really. Many are very conservative, in most ways...very polite, very civil. They just feel very strongly that the priesthood should be extended to women. Actually, not even all of them are pressing for that. Some would simply like to see women have more input, generally speaking, in all areas, even without the priesthood.

[Snow Patrol]

I would definitely question the idea that the changes is inappropriate. Inappropriate until the prophet has a revelation.

I've talked to many of these women. They are not "rebels"...not really. Many are very conservative, in most ways...very polite, very civil. They just feel very strongly that the priesthood should be extended to women. Actually, not even all of them are pressing for that. Some would simply like to see women have more input, generally speaking, in all areas, even without the priesthood.

If I personally feel strongly that baptism should be done by sprinkling is it appropriate for me to gather like minded individuals and march on Salt Lake to demand answers/action?

[Libby]

If I personally feel strongly that baptism should be done by sprinkling is it appropriate for me to gather like minded individuals and march on Salt Lake to demand answers/action?

I think it's very unfair to characterize what these women did, in that way. They lined up in a holding area, waiting to ask permission to be allowed into the priesthood session. They were not carrying signs, they were civil and orderly. The did not "march" anywhere, nor did they make "demands". They quietly and respectfully asked (one by one) for admission into the priesthood session. That wasn't even asking for the priesthood. Would it have really been so awful for the church to allow them in?

[Snow Patrol]

I think it's very unfair to characterize what these women did, in that way. They lined up in a holding area, waiting to ask permission to be allowed into the priesthood session. They were not carrying signs, they were civil and orderly. The did not "march" anywhere, nor did they make "demands". They quietly and respectfully asked (one by one) for admission into the priesthood session. That wasn't even asking for the priesthood. Would it have really been so awful for the church to allow them in?

Ok, if I walk politely with a couple hundred people, at conference time in front of thousands of members, and ask politely that they change a fundamental principle of the gospel then that is OK?

[Snow Patrol]

Ok, if I walk politely with a couple hundred people, at conference time in front of thousands of members, and ask politely that they change a fundamental principle of the gospel then that is OK?

Not only that, if I create a website for my cause and spread my beliefs throughout the church that is ok as well?

Also, it they didn't need to carry signs because they had news coverage that had already announced their intentions so signs were unnecessary.

[alanmolstad]

signs?...... dont allow signs?

[alanmolstad]

If I personally feel strongly that baptism should be done by sprinkling is it appropriate for me to gather like minded individuals and march on Salt Lake to demand answers/action?thats not a bad idea....

[Libby]

Ok, if I walk politely with a couple hundred people, at conference time in front of thousands of members, and ask politely that they change a fundamental principle of the gospel then that is OK?

It should be okay to ask. Why not?

And, I reject the notion that asking to attend a priesthood meeting is "changing a fundamental principle of the gospel".

[Libby]

If your teacher actually told you that, he taught you false doctrine IMO. God runs things in a more organized way than that. If He intends to reveal something new, He knows that the way it works is that He will reveal it to His servants the prophets first. That's one of the reasons why prophets exist in the first place.

Sounded very reasonable, to me. He gave examples, like I said, with the blacks in the priesthood issue. He was not one to teach false doctrine. Very devout and very bright man.

[Libby]

Does anyone know if John and Kate will be allowed to defend themselves in this court thing?

[Libby]

This will air tomorrow morning on "Good Morning America" (ABC, I think).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QirwM1ZgPIg&list=UURHOdnE4IObIwEK7vMPWFvA&feature=share&index=7

[Russianwolfe]

Does anyone know if John and Kate will be allowed to defend themselves in this court thing?

Yes they will be given their time to defend themselves.

Marvin.

[Libby]

Yes they will be given their time to defend themselves.

Marvin.

Thanks, Marvin. Nice to see you again.

It appears that John's court has been postphoned or possibly called off. He is, instead, going to have a meeting with his Stake President on June 28th. The President has expressed a wish to "deescalate". His words. So, that sounds like a good thing.

Kate Kelly, on the other hand, is out of the country and, as far as I know, had no opportunity to address her issues, and probably will not be able to defend herself, unless it's by phone or something.

[Snow Patrol]

It should be okay to ask. Why not?

And, I reject the notion that asking to attend a priesthood meeting is "changing a fundamental principle of the gospel".


You know darn well that isn't just what they wanted. It is very clear with the ***le of their group "Ordain Women."

[RealFakeHair]

You know darn well that isn't just what they wanted. It is very clear with the ***le of their group "Ordain Women."

I have it on good authority from Professor Iam a lyin that women were holders of the imaginary mind priest of Joseph Smith jr.

[Libby]

You know darn well that isn't just what they wanted. It is very clear with the ***le of their group "Ordain Women."

I know very well, that some women in this group do not really care about the priesthood (they believe they already have it). Even one of the women interviewed, said that very thing. I knew two women who gave their own children, hands on blessings, way back when I was still in the church. I also knew women who prayed to Heavenly Mother. Some women don't wait for the men to give them authority to do certain things. This group has many members with slightly different goals. The thing that binds them is the desire to have more input and visability in the church. Did you know that the Conference Center didn't have any pictures of women on the walls, until just recently?

[RealFakeHair]

Yes. They are trying to live 2 opposing lives--one where they are members who believe the leaders are legitimate, and one where they think the leaders are no more called of God than they are. That hardly ever ends well.
Well they are half right!

[Snow Patrol]

I know very well, that some women in this group do not really care about the priesthood (they believe they already have it). Even one of the women interviewed, said that very thing. I knew two women who gave their own children, hands on blessings, way back when I was still in the church. I also knew women who prayed to Heavenly Mother. Some women don't wait for the men to give them authority to do certain things. This group has many members with slightly different goals. The thing that binds them is the desire to have more input and visability in the church. Did you know that the Conference Center didn't have any pictures of women on the walls, until just recently?


Of course there are individuals with different views than the whole in any group there is. However, when the organizing group is Ordain Women, then those participating are by default supporting the cause to ordain women.

[Libby]

Of course there are individuals with different views than the whole in any group there is. However, when the organizing group is Ordain Women, then those participating are by default supporting the cause to ordain women.

Yes, they do "support" it.

[Phoenix]

Some women don't wait for the men to give them authority to do certain things.
Yes--instead of waiting, or just acknowledging that not everyone SHOULD have such authority, they try to SEIZE such authority. That is called "mutiny." :)

[Libby]

Yes--instead of waiting, or just acknowledging that not everyone SHOULD have such authority, they try to SEIZE such authority. That is called "mutiny." :)

Or, perhaps, it's simply listening to the Spirit.

Also, even the church teaches that "prophets" are not perfect, so how can you trust "everything" they say? They also change their minds, often, like with the blacks in the priesthood, so why not with women in the priesthood?

[Libby]

There was a woman I worked with in the Temple who confided to me that she "sometimes" prayed to Heavenly Mother. She said, there are just some things that I think she will understand better, and that I feel more comfortable confiding to her. At the time, I was very touched by that.

[Phoenix]

Or, perhaps, it's simply listening to the Spirit.
That's like implying that Judas was in touch with the Spirit but Paul wasn't. It just doesn't make sense for a NON-prophet
to get new orders from God regarding changes in doctrine, but the actual prophet to NOT get the orders. That is a cart-before-horse way of running things that God would not do. God won't do anything without revealing it to His servants the prophets. See Amos 3.


Also, even the church teaches that "prophets" are not perfect, so how can you trust "everything" they say?
Why do YOU trust what Paul taught, over what Simon Magus taught? Paul wasn't perfect, right? So you should always be suspicious about what he taught, and you should trust some regular member's insights over Paul's, if the regular member has a problem with something that Paul taught. Right? That seems to be your position. It seems a bit anarchistic to me.


They also change their minds, often, like with the blacks in the priesthood, so why not with women in the priesthood?
The prophets didn't change their mind. The doctrine was that the day would come when lineage would not be a barrier to getting the priesthood. That day arrived. End of story. It wasn't a matter of a prophet's mind being changed. Unless you want to claim that John's predictions about the future become a "change of mind" scenario once the predicted events come to p***.

[alanmolstad]

There was a woman I worked with in the Temple who confided to me that she "sometimes" prayed to Heavenly Mother. ......


eve?....or some un-named lady?

[Libby]

That's like implying that Judas was in touch with the Spirit but Paul wasn't. It just doesn't make sense for a NON-prophet
to get new orders from God regarding changes in doctrine, but the actual prophet to NOT get the orders. That is a cart-before-horse way of running things that God would not do. God won't do anything without revealing it to His servants the prophets. See Amos 3.

That verse doesn't claim they will get the information "first". :)

Anyway, I don't believe LDS prophets are even prophets, so that explains it, to me. I don't believe in the LDS version of Heavenly Mother, either. But, I do understand a woman's need to talk to another woman, at times.



Why do YOU trust what Paul taught, over what Simon Magus taught? Paul wasn't perfect, right? So you should always be suspicious about what he taught, and you should trust some regular member's insights over Paul's, if the regular member has a problem with something that Paul taught. Right? That seems to be your position. It seems a bit anarchistic to me.

No, that's not my position (although, I have to admit, it was, at one time). I was going in a direction of pure, personal revelation.

I understand what you're saying, Phoenix. It's just that I have no confidence in LDS prophets, and even when I was in the church, I was of the understanding that one could have personal revelation that is just for them. Pretty sure that was taught. Although, I'm also sure that personal revelation should not have contradicted the prophets. But, there are a lot of LDS out there getting their own revelation about this or that.



The prophets didn't change their mind. The doctrine was that the day would come when lineage would not be a barrier to getting the priesthood. That day arrived. End of story. It wasn't a matter of a prophet's mind being changed. Unless you want to claim that John's predictions about the future become a "change of mind" scenario once the predicted events come to p***.

I think it was Brigham Young that said blacks would get the priesthood dead last, only after ever person of ever race in this world had received it. That didn't happen. I also know that blacks were pressuring them on this issue, especially members...and that there were meetings with them about this issue. It didn't happen that Spencer Kimball just suddenly received a note from God. There was a lot going on in the church, including "agitating" for it, just like the women are doing, now (not the same "form", but definitely agitating).

I think it's interesting that black men got meetings with the prophet over blacks in the priesthood, but the women, who have requested the same, were turned down.

[Libby]

eve?....or some un-named lady?

An "unnamed" woman. (I mean, I knew her name, but didn't want to post it here).

[Phoenix]

That verse doesn't claim they will get the information "first". :)
You are correct, but it stands to reason, common sense, and is Biblical precedent that if God appoints prophets to be His spokesmen, and He has an announcement to make, He usually chooses to have it made through those spokesmen first, because that's why they are there in the first place.


Anyway, I don't believe LDS prophets are even prophets, so that explains it, to me.
Are you playing both sides of the fence on this? Are you supporting the possibility that these dissident women got revelations from God that pertain to His church before His prophets get those revelations---and at the same time you're claiming that these women didn't get ANYTHING from God because the God their inspiration came from doesn't even exist?


I don't believe in the LDS version of Heavenly Mother, either. But, I do understand a woman's need to talk to another woman, at times.
Don't these disgruntled dissident women have "real" mothers and aunts and sisters and female neighbors down here on earth who they can talk to?


...when I was in the church, I was of the understanding that one could have personal revelation that is just for them. Pretty sure that was taught.
That is correct.


although, I'm also sure that personal revelation should not have contradicted the prophets.
Correct as well.


But, there are a lot of LDS out there getting their own revelation about this or that.
"A lot" is a relative term. As a percentage of the total, I'd bet it's less than 1 percent.


I think it's interesting that black men got meetings with the prophet over blacks in the priesthood, but the women, who have requested the same, were turned down.
Do you think the difference might be that it had always been predicted that black MEN would someday be eligible, while in the case of women, that was never in God's plan, since He had other, equally cool, plans for them?

[Libby]

You are correct, but it stands to reason, common sense, and is Biblical precedent that if God appoints prophets to be His spokesmen, and He has an announcement to make, He usually chooses to have it made through those spokesmen first, because that's why they are there in the first place.

It stands to reason that they would make the final decision and implement it. I don't think it would be necessary that they would be the first to know.



Are you playing both sides of the fence on this? Are you supporting the possibility that these dissident women got revelations from God that pertain to His church before His prophets get those revelations---and at the same time you're claiming that these women didn't get ANYTHING from God because the God their inspiration came from doesn't even exist?

Yes. I believe there were prophets, though. I don't believe the LDS men at the top are prophets or receive revelation of any kind. My support for these women is more about equity in the church. But, perhaps, what they are doing will lead them out, which, from my perspective, would not be a bad thing.



Don't these disgruntled dissident women have "real" mothers and aunts and sisters and female neighbors down here on earth who they can talk to?

Who said this woman I spoke of was disgruntled? She was not. She was very devout and loved the church. As far as women (or men, for that matter) having someone in real life they can talk to (about very private things) that is not always the case.



"A lot" is a relative term. As a percentage of the total, I'd bet it's less than 1 percent.

I would guess a lot higher, but that's not something we can fully know. People don't always talk about their true feelings or beliefs.



Do you think the difference might be that it had always been predicted that black MEN would someday be eligible, while in the case of women, that was never in God's plan, since He had other, equally cool, plans for them?

No, I don't. Did you ignore the circumstances laid out, under which blacks would finally be given the priesthood? That was not the way it went down.

[Phoenix]

It stands to reason that they would make the final decision and implement it. I don't think it would be necessary that they would be the first to know
Can you come up with any such precedent in the Bible? For example, did God announce His plan to help the Israelites escape Egypt to Aaron, Miriam, etc. BEFORE He announced it to Moses?


Yes. I believe there were prophets, though. I don't believe the LDS men at the top are prophets or receive revelation of any kind.
Then what you ACTUALLY believe is that any inspiration these women received, where God was gonna change church policy and allow them to be ordained clergy, is FALSE inspiration. Correct? If anything, you believe that if these women have been getting such revelations, it came from SATAN, not from God. Right?


My support for these women is more about equity in the church.
Do you really want them to get what they want--the chance to be part of the hierarchy of a church you believe is false, non-Christian, possibly run by Satan? Why would you want that for those women?


But, perhaps, what they are doing will lead them out, which, from my perspective, would not be a bad thing.
Do you realize the twists in logic you are resorting to? Now you say it would be a GOOD thing if these women DON'T get what they're demanding, because it might cause them to quit the church?

So do you hope they get what they're demanding? Or do you hope their demands are declined?


Did you ignore the circumstances laid out, under which blacks would finally be given the priesthood?
I know what BY's OPINION was about what how long HE felt it would be before the change was made.

I can tell you that when the change in policy was announced in 1978, it didn't cause ME to say "Dang! The prophets LIED to us!"

[Libby]

Can you come up with any such precedent in the Bible? For example, did God announce His plan to help the Israelites escape Egypt to Aaron, Miriam, etc. BEFORE He announced it to Moses?

Maybe. I'm pretty sure the people of Israel knew they would be freed, at some point. They prayed for it.



Then what you ACTUALLY believe is that any inspiration these women received, where God was gonna change church policy and allow them to be ordained clergy, is FALSE inspiration. Correct? If anything, you believe that if these women have been getting such revelations, it came from SATAN, not from God. Right?

No, I don't believe that. Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said anything about Satan inspired revelation...not these women and not the church, as a whole. I believe Joseph was a false prophet and all of those who have followed him have simply been misguided.



Do you really want them to get what they want--the chance to be part of the hierarchy of a church you believe is false, non-Christian, possibly run by Satan? Why would you want that for those women?

Like I said, I've never said anything about Satan. If they're going to stay in the church and want to be equal, in authority to men, why not? I do think many of them will leave over this issue, though.



Do you realize the twists in logic you are resorting to? Now you say it would be a GOOD thing if these women DON'T get what they're demanding, because it might cause them to quit the church?

So do you hope they get what they're demanding? Or do you hope their demands are declined?

Their demands, so far, have been declined. I don't know what will happen, but I support their right to "agitate" for change, if that's what they want. I like to see people standing up for what they believe in.



I know what BY's OPINION was about what how long HE felt it would be before the change was made.

I can tell you that when the change in policy was announced in 1978, it didn't cause ME to say "Dang! The prophets LIED to us!"

Well, that's good, but maybe you should have noticed that several of the prophets got this one wrong? Lots of other folks certainly did.

[Phoenix]

I have never said anything about Satan inspired revelation...not these women and not the church, as a whole.
So when virtually ALL of your newly re-found friends at Carm (the ones who claim to be ex-LDS) say that the LDS church is satanic, all the angelic visitations to its members were demons, etc.---you don't believe they are telling the truth. Correct?
Do you realize what that says about them?


Like I said, I've never said anything about Satan.
But your "friends" have said plenty about Satan being in the temples, being the "god" who LDS pray to, etc. Either they are right, or they are wrong because YOU are right. You once knew that they were wrong. Do you still know that? If yes, then what the heck are you doing in their camp?


Their demands, so far, have been declined. I don't know what will happen, but I support their right to "agitate" for change, if that's what they want. I like to see people standing up for what they believe in.

Yeah? Like the LDS trying to stand up for their right to marry more than one wife, in the 1840s? You know what happened back then, when most LDS were standing up for their right to reside in Missouri?

Extermination Order that gave them a few weeks to be out of the state, and then any LDS still in Missouri after the deadline could legally be killed on sight.

One of your re-discovered friends said that if he had lived in Carthage, Illinois in 1844, he would have been one of the lynch mob who murdered Joseph and Hyrum Smith--he would have been the one p***ing out the ammo to the mob.

[RealFakeHair]

So when virtually ALL of your newly re-found friends at Carm (the ones who claim to be ex-LDS) say that the LDS church is satanic, all the angelic visitations to its members were demons, etc.---you don't believe they are telling the truth. Correct?
Do you realize what that says about them?


But your "friends" have said plenty about Satan being in the temples, being the "god" who LDS pray to, etc. Either they are right, or they are wrong because YOU are right. You once knew that they were wrong. Do you still know that? If yes, then what the heck are you doing in their camp?


Yeah? Like the LDS trying to stand up for their right to marry more than one wife, in the 1840s? You know what happened back then, when most LDS were standing up for their right to reside in Missouri?

Extermination Order that gave them a few weeks to be out of the state, and then any LDS still in Missouri after the deadline could legally be killed on sight.

One of your re-discovered friends said that if he had lived in Carthage, Illinois in 1844, he would have been one of the lynch mob who murdered Joseph and Hyrum Smith--he would have been the one p***ing out the ammo to the mob.

It's like this, either the LDSinc. or Christians are being mislead by Satan, and I don't put my trust in the imaginary mind of the con-man skirt chasing Joseph Smith jr. Let us have no ambiguity, one or the other is wrong.

[alanmolstad]

and i don't put my trust in the imaginary mind of the con-man skirt chasing joseph smith jr.

Amen!.......

[Libby]

So when virtually ALL of your newly re-found friends at Carm (the ones who claim to be ex-LDS) say that the LDS church is satanic, all the angelic visitations to its members were demons, etc.---you don't believe they are telling the truth. Correct?
Do you realize what that says about them?


But your "friends" have said plenty about Satan being in the temples, being the "god" who LDS pray to, etc. Either they are right, or they are wrong because YOU are right. You once knew that they were wrong. Do you still know that? If yes, then what the heck are you doing in their camp?


Yeah? Like the LDS trying to stand up for their right to marry more than one wife, in the 1840s? You know what happened back then, when most LDS were standing up for their right to reside in Missouri?

Extermination Order that gave them a few weeks to be out of the state, and then any LDS still in Missouri after the deadline could legally be killed on sight.

One of your re-discovered friends said that if he had lived in Carthage, Illinois in 1844, he would have been one of the lynch mob who murdered Joseph and Hyrum Smith--he would have been the one p***ing out the ammo to the mob.

Don't try to "guilt" me, Phoenix. My "re-found friends" can believe whatever they want. I'm just saying, *I* have not ever said anything about Satan. It stands to reason that "Satan" would be behind a false prophet. But, humans fall into error all the time, especially, when not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Critics of the church are sometimes wrong about specifics (including myself, at times), but they are "right" about one thing. Joseph Smith was not a prophet..and his theology is way off the charts.

I think my short stint as an "anti-Mormon" is coming to an end. It's just not my calling. I really suck at it. lol

[Phoenix]

Don't try to "guilt" me, Phoenix.
It's not that, really. I just want to make sure you know what kind of people you're jumping into bed with, to minimize the chance that you will regret it later. Because I care about you. (I don't care about them very much)


My "re-found friends" can believe whatever they want.
When you walked away from them the last time, they stated their belief--actually, they claimed to KNOW--that you were never saved, never a real Christian.
So is it really wise to trust what THEY claim to know about the LDS church, when they were so wrong about what they claimed to know about you, about who is and isn't saved, etc.? They seem less reliable than a Magic 8-ball.


I'm just saying, *I* have not ever said anything about Satan.
Who do YOU think appeared in vision to J. Smith when, at age 14, he prayed to the God of the Bible, in name of the Jesus of the Bible, for help figuring out which church he should join? Who do you think appeared to him and told him about the gold-colored plates with inspired words about God and Christ engraved on them?

a) Heavenly beings.
b) Satanic beings.
c) No beings at all.


I think my short stint as an "anti-Mormon" is coming to an end. It's just not my calling. I really suck at it. lol
I agree. You are not good at it because your heart is not really in it--being mean to people, mocking their cherished beliefs about God and Christ, making fun of their clothing and lifestyle choices, is not your nature. Any attempts by you to attack the LDS are half-hearted, and it shows. You're not mean enough, immature enough, or insecure enough to be a real anti-LDS.

[theway]

I think it's very unfair to characterize what these women did, in that way. They lined up in a holding area, waiting to ask permission to be allowed into the priesthood session. They were not carrying signs, they were civil and orderly. The did not "march" anywhere, nor did they make "demands". They quietly and respectfully asked (one by one) for admission into the priesthood session. That wasn't even asking for the priesthood. Would it have really been so awful for the church to allow them in?You are missing the important part. They were told beforehand not to show up during the Priesthood Session, and not to ask to get in.

[theway]

I know very well, that some women in this group do not really care about the priesthood (they believe they already have it). Even one of the women interviewed, said that very thing. I knew two women who gave their own children, hands on blessings, way back when I was still in the church. I also knew women who prayed to Heavenly Mother. Some women don't wait for the men to give them authority to do certain things. This group has many members with slightly different goals. The thing that binds them is the desire to have more input and visability in the church. Did you know that the Conference Center didn't have any pictures of women on the walls, until just recently?They are all united however in their one sin.

It's the exact same thing Saul was guilty of when he decided not to wait for any priesthood authority to make the sacrifice.

These women need to do a little but more reading in their Bibles.

1 Samuel 15:22 ....Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, ......

[RealFakeHair]

1 Samuel 15:22 ....Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, ......

I wonder why ol jo didn't use this verse when hitting on Nancy Rigdon?

[alanmolstad]

Don't try to "guilt" me, Phoenix. My "re-found friends" can believe whatever they want. I'm just saying, *I* have not ever said anything about Satan. It stands to reason that "Satan" would be behind a false prophet. But, humans fall into error all the time, especially, when not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Critics of the church are sometimes wrong about specifics (including myself, at times), but they are "right" about one thing. Joseph Smith was not a prophet..and his theology is way off the charts.

I think my short stint as an "anti-Mormon" is coming to an end. It's just not my calling. I really suck at it. lol


while it would "fit" that Satan and other evil spirits are found and worshiped inside the Mormon Temple...the trouble is that Im not all that up to date on the day-to-day activity of the demons.....Nor do i know when they come and go?....

So while it "fits' that Mormons worship Satan inside the temple, its not something we can really nail-down.

[RealFakeHair]

while it would "fit" that Satan and other evil spirits are found and worshiped inside the Mormon Temple...the trouble is that Im not all that up to date on the day-to-day activity of the demons.....Nor do i know when they come and go?....

So while it "fits' that Mormons worship Satan inside the temple, its not something we can really nail-down.
If it is not of God, then who is it from?

[Libby]

while it would "fit" that Satan and other evil spirits are found and worshiped inside the Mormon Temple...the trouble is that Im not all that up to date on the day-to-day activity of the demons.....Nor do i know when they come and go?....

So while it "fits' that Mormons worship Satan inside the temple, its not something we can really nail-down.

Exactly. It's not something I am willing to say or judge and I've been in the Temple.

[Libby]

If it is not of God, then who is it from?

Human error. The thing is, LDS believe they are worshipping Christ, not Satan. When I think of Satan worshippers, I think of people standing before a statue of Satan (or a Pentagram or something)...and having full knowledge of "exactly" what they are doing and who they are worshipping. There ARE such people and I'm not willing to put LDS in the same category.

[alanmolstad]

it would fit.....we know its not the true God of the Bible....

But aside from that?.........

[alanmolstad]

artwork paints Satan with goat feet and a red tail....


But the reality is that the Bible warns us that Satan will appear as an angel of light.....
Satan will appear to us as we expect an angel to appear as.....

Thats is the reason we were warned to expect an angel to bring a different message.

[RealFakeHair]

artwork paints Satan with goat feet and a red tail....


But the reality is that the Bible warns us that Satan will appear as an angel of light.....
Satan will appear to us as we expect an angel to appear as.....

Thats is the reason we were warned to expect an angel to bring a different message.

This is what is sad about mormonism, they can't understand Satan is the great deceiver. I love this verse of Scripture...Corinthians 11:3
Verse Concepts
But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

[Phoenix]

artwork paints Satan with goat feet and a red tail....
But the reality is that the Bible warns us that Satan will appear as an angel of light.....
Satan will appear to us as we expect an angel to appear as.....


How do YOU expect an angel to look?

[RealFakeHair]

How do YOU expect an angel to look?
like my grandchildren!

[alanmolstad]

How do YOU expect an angel to look?

ahh, very good question.

lets check out the verse to get the correct context of what we are talking about.

Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!"


So this is the correct warning about what appeared to Smith , and if you are asking for my own personal view about what was seen?, (if something was truly seen, as I have my doubts as to the whole Smith story)

Then let me go over the points I see that are important.
The angel Paul warns about is not called a demon, but is clearly identified as an " angel from heaven"...so there is clearly the idea that the angel looks like he (or she?) is truly from heaven.
So there is a real "legitimacy"to how the angel appears, and their tone and the image they project.....all much say to the person who sees them as being
from heaven"

The next thing we see in the warning by Paul is that this angel is able to "preach"
Not just "speak", but there is the idea of a long dialogue where ideas of the angel are talked about, perhaps questions asked and answered?....
So its not really a "burning Bush" type of appearance to my mind that Paul is foretelling about.

So the angel can speak, and speak in a manner and with a voice and with the type of words that a person can hear and understand what is being said.

This seems to suggest to me that the angel has a mouth, lips, a tongue, and a normal human-like face, something that a person can relate with....


Now past this?...ummm...Im not all that sure?

There is the temptation to say that this angel would be dressed all in white....but Im not sure that is a necessary way to dress as an angel.
I would say that however the angel is dressed, it must give the person looking at the angel the idea that "its a real angel"......so I would expect the angel to be dressed smartly and not have dirty clothes on, as im not sure angels can get dirty.




So....in one word, how would I expect the angel from heaven that Paul warns us about to appear to us as?......"Beautiful"

So attractive to the eye in fact, that it was important enough and dangerous enough to cause Paul to warn the church about.....

[Libby]

It's not that, really. I just want to make sure you know what kind of people you're jumping into bed with, to minimize the chance that you will regret it later. Because I care about you. (I don't care about them very much)

Well, I appreciate that, but sometimes you sound like a Jewish mother. ;-) I'm a big girl.



When you walked away from them the last time, they stated their belief--actually, they claimed to KNOW--that you were never saved, never a real Christian.
So is it really wise to trust what THEY claim to know about the LDS church, when they were so wrong about what they claimed to know about you, about who is and isn't saved, etc.? They seem less reliable than a Magic 8-ball.

They weren't wrong about my being "off the reservation", as RFH put it. Do you think I am a "real" Mormon, even though I still have membership in the LDS Church?



Who do YOU think appeared in vision to J. Smith when, at age 14, he prayed to the God of the Bible, in name of the Jesus of the Bible, for help figuring out which church he should join? Who do you think appeared to him and told him about the gold-colored plates with inspired words about God and Christ engraved on them?

a) Heavenly beings.
b) Satanic beings.
c) No beings at all.

"C"...no beings at all.


I agree. You are not good at it because your heart is not really in it--being mean to people, mocking their cherished beliefs about God and Christ, making fun of their clothing and lifestyle choices, is not your nature. Any attempts by you to attack the LDS are half-hearted, and it shows. You're not mean enough, immature enough, or insecure enough to be a real anti-LDS.

I think there is some "meanness" sometimes...or, at least, the appearance of it. But, I think most are genuinely afraid for the LDS people or for others who might be tempted to join, which is why they go to such lengths.

[theway]

ahh, very good question.

lets check out the verse to get the correct context of what we are talking about.

[B]Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!"
This is actually not a good verse to glean any doctrine out of, for this verse is really nothing more than hyperbolic rhetoric which actually contradictions itself. Paul has a habit of this kind of rhetoric in his writings.
Most commentaries recognize the impossibility of taking this literally.

1. The Apostle would in essence be saying "if I preached to you a gospel other than what I preached to you... The problem with this is if they either misunderstood him the first time, or were not there the first time, then how would they ever know then whether what is is saying now is true? Which would make the entire book of Galatians and the new testament suspect.
2. We definitely were not there the first time, so we have no way of knowing what he preached to them, and therefore for us this verse would have no meaning whatsoever.
3. It would impossible for an Angel(messenger) sent from HEAVEN to say anything other than what he was sent to say.
Unless you believe that God would send a messenger knowing beforehand that that messenger was not going to carry the message he was supposed to carry, and lie to people.
4. Satan CAN appear as an Angel of light, however you seem to forget that a true Angel of light WILL appear as an Angel of light... which means the odds are more likely that an Angel of light is an Angel of Light.

Ironically, taken literally Paul is saying that the only one that you can trust is direct communication with God (not the New Testament as it wasn't even written at that time.)

I think that probably sounds a little too Mormon for you however.

[Libby]

This is actually not a good verse to glean any doctrine out of, for this verse is really nothing more than hyperbolic rhetoric which actually contradictions itself. Paul has a habit of this kind of rhetoric in his writings.
Most commentaries recognize the impossibility of taking this literally.

1. The Apostle would in essence be saying "if I preached to you a gospel other than what I preached to you... The problem with this is if they either misunderstood him the first time, or were not there the first time, then how would they ever know then whether what is is saying now is true? Which would make the entire book of Galatians and the new testament suspect.
2. We definitely were not there the first time, so we have no way of knowing what he preached to them, and therefore for us this verse would have no meaning whatsoever.
3. It would impossible for an Angel(messenger) sent from HEAVEN to say anything other than what he was sent to say.
Unless you believe that God would send a messenger knowing beforehand that that messenger was not going to carry the message he was supposed to carry, and lie to people.
4. Satan CAN appear as an Angel of light, however you seem to forget that a true Angel of light WILL appear as an Angel of light... which means the odds are more likely that an Angel of light is an Angel of Light.

Ironically, taken literally Paul is saying that the only one that you can trust is direct communication with God (not the New Testament as it wasn't even written at that time.)

I think that probably sounds a little too Mormon for you however.

I think the importance of this verse has to do with making sure we are in the faith and not wandering out of it. You can't know if you're in the faith (or in Christ) if you don't have a reliable standard by which to judge. The Bible has become that standard. Really, this is what you were talking about, in regards to the OW women disobeying church hierarchy (because you see them as the "standard" by which to judge, whether or not you are "in the faith")...right?

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?

[theway]

I think the importance of this verse has to do with making sure we are in the faith and not wandering out of it. You can't know if you're in the faith (or in Christ) if you don't have a reliable standard by which to judge. The Bible has become that standard. Really, this is what you were talking about, in regards to the OW women disobeying church hierarchy (because you see them as the "standard" by which to judge, whether or not you are "in the faith")...right?

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?
No not really, the Bible was never meant to be the standard, God's Word was.
The problem is that since modern Christianity has admitted to losing direct contact with God through revelation, they are left with His written words only, being interpreted by the people that they will agree with.
Even in Christ's day He noted that they had diligently searched the scripture but had totally missed the meaning of it, and later on using it as proof of Christ's supposed blasphemy ... The same has happened today. The vast majority of Christian use the scriptures as a standard yet do not understand its meaning. Even it's basic meaning.

[Phoenix]

How do YOU expect an angel to look?


like my grandchildren!


Be careful, then--your grandkids may actually be demons....

[Phoenix]

Well, I appreciate that, but sometimes you sound like a Jewish mother. ;-) I'm a big girl.
Even big girls can be susceptible to being tossed to and fro by competing doctrines. Otherwise, the NT apostles wouldn't have issued the warning about it.


They weren't wrong about my being "off the reservation", as RFH put it.
They were speaking Calvinistically. When you were spouting their rhetoric, they "knew" that you'd been saved. But when you went off their reservation, they "knew" that you "were never really one of us." They are full of contradictions, soteriology wise.


Do you think I am a "real" Mormon, even though I still have membership in the LDS Church?
Since I believe that eternal life is the destination, not something given to people the minute they start believing in Jesus, it's not an issue--I never claimed to know that you had been given eternal life, so I don't have to worry about later contradicting myself and claiming to know that you HADN'T been given it.


"C"...no beings at all.
I bet you don't realize how unlikely that answer is of being the right answer. JS wasn't the only person who claimed to have seen and heard heavenly beings. "C" means that they were all lying, in a vast conspiracy. Which is not likely.

[Phoenix]

This is actually not a good verse to glean any doctrine out of, for this verse is really nothing more than hyperbolic rhetoric which actually contradictions itself. Paul has a habit of this kind of rhetoric in his writings.
Most commentaries recognize the impossibility of taking this literally.

1. The Apostle would in essence be saying "if I preached to you a gospel other than what I preached to you... The problem with this is if they either misunderstood him the first time, or were not there the first time, then how would they ever know then whether what is is saying now is true? Which would make the entire book of Galatians and the new testament suspect.
2. We definitely were not there the first time, so we have no way of knowing what he preached to them, and therefore for us this verse would have no meaning whatsoever.
3. It would impossible for an Angel(messenger) sent from HEAVEN to say anything other than what he was sent to say.
Unless you believe that God would send a messenger knowing beforehand that that messenger was not going to carry the message he was supposed to carry, and lie to people.
4. Satan CAN appear as an Angel of light, however you seem to forget that a true Angel of light WILL appear as an Angel of light... which means the odds are more likely that an Angel of light is an Angel of Light.

Ironically, taken literally Paul is saying that the only one that you can trust is direct communication with God (not the New Testament as it wasn't even written at that time.)
..

Excellent reply. Well done.

[Libby]

Even big girls can be susceptible to being tossed to and fro by competing doctrines. Otherwise, the NT apostles wouldn't have issued the warning about it.

I've been painfully aware of the "tossing".



They were speaking Calvinistically. When you were spouting their rhetoric, they "knew" that you'd been saved. But when you went off their reservation, they "knew" that you "were never really one of us." They are full of contradictions, soteriology wise.

Well, there is a belief that "true believers" will endure to the end. Your church believes that, as well. They just don't believe one will, necessarily, go to "hell", if they fall off the path.



Since I believe that eternal life is the destination, not something given to people the minute they start believing in Jesus, it's not an issue--I never claimed to know that you had been given eternal life, so I don't have to worry about later contradicting myself and claiming to know that you HADN'T been given it.

Yes, judgment of one's final destination is suspended, in the LDS Church, I agree. That work can even be continued after death, if someone does your ordinances.



I bet you don't realize how unlikely that answer is of being the right answer. JS wasn't the only person who claimed to have seen and heard heavenly beings. "C" means that they were all lying, in a vast conspiracy. Which is not likely.

I was talking about the first vision, specifically. I don't know what these other men saw, but I just highly doubt it was "real".

[Libby]

Back on the topic of this thread, Kate Kelly has sent a letter to her Bishop, in her own defense, since she cannot attend the court.

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Kate-Kelly-Letter-of-Defense.pdf

Over a thousand letters have been sent to Kate's Bishop on her behalf.

[Phoenix]

Back on the topic of this thread, Kate Kelly has sent a letter to her Bishop, in her own defense, since she cannot attend the court.

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Kate-Kelly-Letter-of-Defense.pdf

Over a thousand letters have been sent to Kate's Bishop on her behalf.

Should I write one letter to her bishop for the other side in the debate? Should I get 999 other TBMs to write to him as well, so it's fair and balanced? :)

[Libby]

Should I write one letter to her bishop for the other side in the debate? Should I get 999 other TBMs to write to him as well, so it's fair and balanced? :)

The "power" in the church is already very out of balance, and there will be no women on that panel... so you could send a million more letters on HER behalf and it STILL won't be fair and balanced.

[theway]

Back on the topic of this thread, Kate Kelly has sent a letter to her Bishop, in her own defense, since she cannot attend the court.Please.......
You are mistaking "cannot" for "REFUSING TO"

Her open letter is a perfect example of her problem. Since she knows the Church will keep the proceeding private, she wants only her view seen, but not the Church's.

As I said before this has nothing to do with "wearing pants in church.






Over a thousand letters have been sent to Kate's Bishop on her behalf.This is not a Church built on "Mob Rule"
If she does not already know this, then she knows nothing about the Church she says she belongs to.

[alanmolstad]

.......
If she does not already know this, then she knows nothing about the Church she says she belongs to.


from my point of view....I must agree with this statement about what she is putting all her faith in......

she knows not what she is doing......




But my hope is that at some point in this she comes to the opinion that "God is not found within the Mormon Church"
and at that point she opens her heart to a Jesus not found in Mormonism...

[RealFakeHair]

from my point of view....I must agree with this statement about what she is putting all her faith in......

she knows not what she is doing......



But my hope is that at some point in this she comes to the opinion that "God is not found within the Mormon Church"
and at that point she opens her heart to a Jesus not found in Mormonism...

Or while she is in the temple the ghost of Joseph Smith jr. might appear to her and after he hits on her she will come to her senses.

[Libby]

Please.......
You are mistaking "cannot" for "REFUSING TO"

Her open letter is a perfect example of her problem. Since she knows the Church will keep the proceeding private, she wants only her view seen, but not the Church's.

As I said before this has nothing to do with "wearing pants in church.

You don't know her circumstances, but frankly I don't blame her for not showing up.

Seems like all of the LDS men I have talked to (and I know several) are so hostile, on this subject. What the heck is going on?



This is not a Church built on "Mob Rule"
If she does not already know this, then she knows nothing about the Church she says she belongs to.

Mob rule? No, it is not, but there was significant "agitating" for blacks in the priesthood...and leadership did meet with black groups before the changes were made. I heard that several Apostles voted to change it in 1969, but the vote was not unanimous until 1978 (long time!)...but, it did happen and it WAS something that blacks, for sure, wanted and "agitated" to get. I guess it was voted in because of "mob rule"?

[theway]

You don't know her circumstances, but frankly I don't blame her for not showing up.
Her reason for not showing up is... Quilting.

Notice though, how quickly you changed your statement by implying that even if there was no good reason for not showing up, you'll make excuses for her or agree with whatever excuse she wants to come up with.


Seems like all of the LDS men I have talked to (and I know several) are so hostile, on this subject. What the heck is going on?"Hostile" really??? Isn't it amazing how you see nothing in her trying to bully the Church to cede to HER BELIEFS as hostile in any way whatsoever.

Why don't you read this article by a women, who I perfectly agree with. Though I suppose just like your first statement you'll now change this one to include women in the Church as hostile or brainwashed in order for you to continue to see these women or men as heroes.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605509/Ashley-Isaacson-Woolley-Ordain-Women-is-not-the-answer-on-Mormon-women7s-equality.html?pg=all#ho4EDgRiEapsw7mI.01




Mob rule? No, it is not, but there was significant "agitating" for blacks in the priesthood...and leadership did meet with black groups before the changes were made. I heard that several Apostles voted to change it in 1969, but the vote was not unanimous until 1978 (long time!)...but, it did happen and it WAS something that blacks, for sure, wanted and "agitated" to get. I guess it was voted in because of "mob rule"?There is a giant difference.
Even for those who believed this was actual doctrine, they always knew that at one point blacks would be given back the priesthood, like it was in Joseph Smith's day.

Women may be given the priesthood one day when it is God's Will, but not by someone trying to circumvent God and His chosen Prophets.

[Phoenix]

Libby, if you and Kate could go back in time to 32 A.D. Jerusalem, would you and her be organizing protest marches and "epistle-writing" campaigns to protest Jesus choosing only men for all 12 of the apostle positions? Would you be branding Jesus as "unfair" for failing to implement "gender equality" into the apostolic "brotherhood"? Would the two of you be "agitating" for females in the priesthood" and demanding to "meet with leadership" so your desired "changes could be made"?

If yes, then you are consistent. If no, then you need to explain the inconsistency.

[Libby]

Libby, if you and Kate could go back in time to 32 A.D. Jerusalem, would you and her be organizing protest marches and "epistle-writing" campaigns to protest Jesus choosing only men for all 12 of the apostle positions? Would you be branding Jesus as "unfair" for failing to implement "gender equality" into the apostolic "brotherhood"? Would the two of you be "agitating" for females in the priesthood" and demanding to "meet with leadership" so your desired "changes could be made"?

If yes, then you are consistent. If no, then you need to explain the inconsistency.

I might ask about it. If I were a follower of Jesus, during that time, I would probably have fairly easy access to the Apostles. I doubt, any question from a genuine follower, was deemed "unworthy" of a civil response or consideration. I certainly wouldn't expect to be tossed out of the "club" for asking.

[Libby]

Her reason for not showing up is... Quilting.

Notice though, how quickly you changed your statement by implying that even if there was no good reason for not showing up, you'll make excuses for her or agree with whatever excuse she wants to come up with.

"Hostile" really??? Isn't it amazing how you see nothing in her trying to bully the Church to cede to HER BELIEFS as hostile in any way whatsoever.

Why don't you read this article by a women, who I perfectly agree with. Though I suppose just like your first statement you'll now change this one to include women in the Church as hostile or brainwashed in order for you to continue to see these women or men as heroes.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605509/Ashley-Isaacson-Woolley-Ordain-Women-is-not-the-answer-on-Mormon-women7s-equality.html?pg=all#ho4EDgRiEapsw7mI.01


There is a giant difference.
Even for those who believed this was actual doctrine, they always knew that at one point blacks would be given back the priesthood, like it was in Joseph Smith's day.

Women may be given the priesthood one day when it is God's Will, but not by someone trying to circumvent God and His chosen Prophets.

There really is no difference, TW, only in that it's women we're talking about and not black men. And, women who acquiesce to being treated as second cl*** citizens, really do not impress me.

[theway]

There really is no difference, TW, only in that it's women we're talking about and not black men. There most certainly is a difference.
Who receives the Priesthood and how, was received by revelation. Ending the temporary ban of the priesthood which gives it back to all worthy males, was also received by revelation. These women do not want a revelation, they want action based on numbers, I.e. "Mob Rule"
Their attempts to "steady the Ark", no matter how well meaning, will be met with the same results given to Uzzah, David, Saul, Moses, or even Joseph Smith.



And, women who acquiesce to being treated as second cl*** citizens, really do not impress me.Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statement?
You guys go around saying you want to speak for the poor Mormon women, because all female voices matter. Yet the first time a Mormon women speaks up disagreeing with you, you tell us her voice does not matter. Just as I predicted you would do.
You would have at least been honest had you just said that only Mormon women who agree with you matter.

Likewise, the fact that you consider yourself as a "second cl*** citizen" if you do not hold the priesthood, shows you are not ready for it. A person who receives the priesthood does not move up in rank, it is exactly the opposite. You become the servant of all, the lowest of all. In fact, a women has the right to demand a blessing from a priesthood holder, and if that demand is a righteous one and the priesthood holder refuses, he comes under a curse from God. Any blessing a priesthood holders receives from the priesthood is merely collateral, as you can not bless yourself, you can only be cursed if you do not use it to help others.

But then again, this is not a LDS issue, we simply agree with the vast majority if those who call themselves Christian.

It is you, who must once again, side with those who try to push a heretical agenda.

[Libby]

Yes, a woman should definitely know her place and beg for a priesthood blessing. Never, ever ***ert yourself, in this church.

Kate Kelly was ex'd this morning. I'm angry and very sad for her, because I know she is feeling the pain.

[theway]

Yes, a woman should definitely know her place and beg for a priesthood blessing. Never, ever ***ert yourself, in this church.LOL... I used the word "demand" you came back with "beg" these are two completely opposite words. I love how you like to constantly change, not only your own statements, but mine as well in order to make yourself and your cause look persecuted.
Just out of curiosity, do you see her as begging for the rules to be changed, or demanding they do?



Kate Kelly was ex'd this morning. I'm angry and very sad for her, because I know she is feeling the pain.The reason you are angry is because you fell for her bait; hook, line, and sinker.

After all,let's look at the facts.
You believe that the church is not true.
You do not recognize the priesthood authority in the Church.
You don't believe in the power of the priesthood within the church.

So have you asked yourself why you mad that a woman did not get a priesthood that you feel is fake, not of God, and powerless in a church you do not believe in?

What's ironic, is that you claim women should be able to express their own opinion, but yet inwardly you want to silence those opinions who disagree with you. But yet at the same time, drop your own opinion in an instant, to follow after someone else's.


Hint... You gave the answer already in another post.

[RealFakeHair]

There most certainly is a difference.
Who receives the Priesthood and how, was received by revelation. Ending the temporary ban of the priesthood which gives it back to all worthy males, was also received by revelation. These women do not want a revelation, they want action based on numbers, I.e. "Mob Rule"
Their attempts to "steady the Ark", no matter how well meaning, will be met with the same results given to Uzzah, David, Saul, Moses, or even Joseph Smith.


Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statement?
You guys go around saying you want to speak for the poor Mormon women, because all female voices matter. Yet the first time a Mormon women speaks up disagreeing with you, you tell us her voice does not matter. Just as I predicted you would do.
You would have at least been honest had you just said that only Mormon women who agree with you matter.

Likewise, the fact that you consider yourself as a "second cl*** citizen" if you do not hold the priesthood, shows you are not ready for it. A person who receives the priesthood does not move up in rank, it is exactly the opposite. You become the servant of all, the lowest of all. In fact, a women has the right to demand a blessing from a priesthood holder, and if that demand is a righteous one and the priesthood holder refuses, he comes under a curse from God. Any blessing a priesthood holders receives from the priesthood is merely collateral, as you can not bless yourself, you can only be cursed if you do not use it to help others.

But then again, this is not a LDS issue, we simply agree with the vast majority if those who call themselves Christian.

It is you, who must once again, side with those who try to push a heretical agenda.

That is such BS! It is just one of many of Joseph Smith jr, imaginary mind control think-ie.
Try reading the Holy Bible....1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

[Phoenix]

Yes, a woman should definitely know her place and beg for a priesthood blessing. Never, ever ***ert yourself, in this church.
Actually, the rule is "Never incite MUTINY in the church." Jesus didn't put up with it in the 1st Century, and there's no good reason why He should put up with it today. :)



Kate Kelly was ex'd this morning. I'm angry and very sad for her, because I know she is feeling the pain.
Don't be so sure she's feeling pain. There is a good chance she is smiling right now because she got the outcome she was hoping for in her plan.

[Libby]

Actually, the rule is "Never incite MUTINY in the church." Jesus didn't put up with it in the 1st Century, and there's no good reason why He should put up with it today. :)



Don't be so sure she's feeling pain. There is a good chance she is smiling right now because she got the outcome she was hoping for in her plan.

Actually, Phoenix, I know better. She was crying the night before, while speaking in SLC and she is crying today. I think you don't really understand what has happened here. Kate is a TBM. She is not like John Dehlin, who has all kinds of doubts about the church. She just recently gave a Book of Mormon to one of her law professors. She served a mission for the church...she has no doubts about it's claims, not scripture or any of it. She is being treated very badly. It's also very intimidating to a lot of women, to see what's going on.

[Libby]

It's frankly very disheartening to see men in the church treating her and talking about her this way.

[Phoenix]

Actually, Phoenix, I know better.
Do you also know that she has been LYING to the press, slandering the church, specifically the leaders who were trying to work with her and offer her ways to avoid excommunication? Her lies were exposed when she leaked the letter from her bishop.


She was crying the night before, while speaking in SLC and she is crying today.
I agree that she started a fight that has given her something to cry about.


I think you don't really understand what has happened here. Kate is a TBM.
If she were really a TBM, she wouldn't now be an ex-LDS.


She is not like John Dehlin, who has all kinds of doubts about the church.
He supported her. They are like peas in a pod. They both think the church and its leaders are wrong in sticking with Christian values regarding who God wants to be clergy, and what God thinks of gays marrying each other. They are both apostates by the very definition of the word.


She just recently gave a Book of Mormon to one of her law professors. She served a mission for the church...she has no doubts about it's claims, not scripture or any of it.
She MUST have doubts about its claims to have inspired apostles and prophets, since it's them she is defying. She deliberately disobeyed direct orders from them, and she was TOLD that if she did so, it would be evidence of apostasy on her part. Should she really be surprised that she ignored the warning to stop sticking her hand in the fire, and now she has a burnt hand?


She is being treated very badly.
No, she BEHAVED very badly.

If I broke Carm's most serious rules, was warned that if I did it again they'd ban me, and I told them "Tough, I'm gonna do it again anyway" and then then they banned me, how much sympathy should you have for me? How much of a victim would I really be? How shocked should I be that I got banned? How sorry should the Carm loyalists feel for me? How angry should people be at Carm?

[alanmolstad]

Actually, Phoenix, I know better. She was crying the night before, while speaking in SLC and she is crying today. I think you don't really understand what has happened here. Kate is a TBM. She is not like John Dehlin, who has all kinds of doubts about the church. She just recently gave a Book of Mormon to one of her law professors. She served a mission for the church...she has no doubts about it's claims, not scripture or any of it. She is being treated very badly. It's also very intimidating to a lot of women, to see what's going on.

It is my hope that God will move, and that her heartwill be called....and that in a bit she sees a Jesus that is not found in Mormonism....

Lets never forget, Mormons are in a CULT...they die and end up in Hell.....

and so getting tossed out of the Mormon church is the "Best Thing" that ever happened to her...

[theway]

It is my hope that God will move, and that her heartwill be called....and that in a bit she sees a Jesus that is not found in Mormonism....

Lets never forget, Mormons are in a CULT...they die and end up in Hell.....

and so getting tossed out of the Mormon church is the "Best Thing" that ever happened to her...In others words...
She is now free to find a church which requires nothing of you, where you are able to create your own God and theology, without any ramifications whatsoever.
Ironically, after she has created her own God and priesthood, she will now be able to be accepted with open arms into the Christian club.

[theway]

The "Hypocritical Quote of the Day" goes to Kate Kelly.


She sent a letter to the disciplinary council with pictures from childhood to marriage testifying to her love for her faith, and begging the judges to “allow me to continue to worship in peace.”

[RealFakeHair]

It's frankly very disheartening to see men in the church treating her and talking about her this way.

How dare you Libby, don't you know it is a man's World? Now go and get me a cup of coffee! lol

[theway]

How dare you Libby, don't you know it is a man's World? Now go and get me a cup of coffee! lol
That's true for the world in general, however, we are talking about males who hold the priesthood.

If we are talking about male priesthood holders in Mormonism, then your quip would have been...

"Husband! Go get me a cup of postum!"
Husband answers "Yes my love"

That's because the male priesthood holder in Mormonism would have taken on the role of a servant in blessing others.
Your idea that the Priesthood gives you authority to lord over someone is the complete opposite of its intent.

[Libby]

That is supposed to be the role, but men still hold all of the "authority" and they DO, sometimes, "lord it over" people...just like they did with Kate Kelly.

[Libby]

It is my hope that God will move, and that her heartwill be called....and that in a bit she sees a Jesus that is not found in Mormonism....

Lets never forget, Mormons are in a CULT...they die and end up in Hell.....

and so getting tossed out of the Mormon church is the "Best Thing" that ever happened to her...

She said, she was in no hurry for rebaptism. She is really disappointed and hurt. She and her husband are leaving for Kenya in three months (not sure if it is *** related or what), but I would guess meeting houses are far and few between, in that country, so it will give her time to sort things out. We'll see what happens. I am praying for her and others who are being disciplined for asking for equal status in the church.

[Phoenix]

She said, she was in no hurry for rebaptism. She is really disappointed and hurt.
She should be disappointed in herself, for the hurt she caused herself. (My opinion, of course, so feel free to disagree)


She and her husband are leaving for Kenya in three months ...
I hope they will stop in at the Obama Family hut and p*** along the thanks from the USA for inflicting their son on our country. :) (That remark should cheer you up, right?)


it will give her time to sort things out.
I hope what she sorts out is what she really wants from the LDS church.


I am praying for her and others who are being disciplined for asking for equal status in the church.
When members who demand that the Church perform their marriage to their pet Lab Retriever get the boot, will you be sad that they were denied equal status in the church, too? Where are you drawing your own personal line between "Deserves equal status" and "That's ridiculous" ??

[Libby]

She should be disappointed in herself, for the hurt she caused herself. (My opinion, of course, so feel free to disagree)

Kate is wrong, regarding her religious choice, IMHO, but right in principle. I think she kind of knew this stance would hurt her, but hoping that "the brethren" would see and understand the principle for which she was advocating. They didn't, of course, and I am not surprised...only disappointed.



I hope they will stop in at the Obama Family hut and p*** along the thanks from the USA for inflicting their son on our country. :) (That remark should cheer you up, right?)

Not worthy of comment. :p



I hope what she sorts out is what she really wants from the LDS church.

I think she has that sorted out very well. She wants equality. She wants the priesthood.



When members who demand that the Church perform their marriage to their pet Lab Retriever get the boot, will you be sad that they were denied equal status in the church, too? Where are you drawing your own personal line between "Deserves equal status" and "That's ridiculous" ??

You are better than this. You degrade yourself with this kind of question. The line is drawn at human beings, of course.

[Phoenix]

Kate is wrong, regarding her religious choice, IMHO, but right in principle. I think she kind of knew this stance would hurt her, but hoping that "the brethren" would see and understand the principle for which she was advocating. They didn't, of course, and I am not surprised...only disappointed.
The question is: Was KATE really surprised when she was unable to bully God into changing a doctrine that He had been implementing for 4000 years before Kate came along? If she was surprised to learn that she wasn't able to cause such a huge change all by herself, then she was naive in the extreme, to the point of being out of touch with reality.


I think she has that sorted out very well. She wants equality. She wants the priesthood.
Why doesn't she just join the RLDS church, which has ALREADY caved in to the demands of liberals and already ordaines women to the priesthood? Something is fishy about her failure to go where she could get what she wants.

Suppose she got the priesthood, and ended up being in charge, and a group of men started camping in front of her house with signs demanding the RIGHT to marry as many women as they want? Would she say "Okay, because 100 of you want this, that's a good enough reason to change the doctrine, so you win" ?????

[RealFakeHair]

The question is: Was KATE really surprised when she was unable to bully God into changing a doctrine that He had been implementing for 4000 years before Kate came along?
Do what? It was your founder and skirt chaser Joseph Smith jr. Who came along and Changed 2000 years of Christian doctrine so what is the difference here?

[Phoenix]

Do what?
What I said, that's what--a regular lay member doing protest demonstrations against his/her church, demanding "reform" aka changes in policy. Like Martin Luther did against HIS church, except he wasn't a lay member, he had already been ordained a priest in his church.


It was your founder and skirt chaser Joseph Smith jr. Who came along and Changed 2000 years of Christian doctrine so what is the difference here?
You need to be a little more mature in what you say, so that readers can understand what you are ranting about. What 2000-year-policy are you referring to? 2000 years ago, Jesus was about 14 years old, so what Christian doctrines even existed at that time?

[Libby]

The question is: Was KATE really surprised when she was unable to bully God into changing a doctrine that He had been implementing for 4000 years before Kate came along? If she was surprised to learn that she wasn't able to cause such a huge change all by herself, then she was naive in the extreme, to the point of being out of touch with reality.

Bully God?? Really? <me rolling my eyes> She was not surprised that women were not "instantly" given the priesthood. She WAS surprised that they ex'd her for asking...and mainly for asking for entrance into the priesthood session at conference. That's "really" what they ex'd her for....that she and a bunch of other women had the gall to ask for admission to the "men only" priesthood session. I don't think it would have broken any "sacred" rules to just let them in. I mean, why not?



Why doesn't she just join the RLDS church, which has ALREADY caved in to the demands of liberals and already ordaines women to the priesthood? Something is fishy about her failure to go where she could get what she wants.

Suppose she got the priesthood, and ended up being in charge, and a group of men started camping in front of her house with signs demanding the RIGHT to marry as many women as they want? Would she say "Okay, because 100 of you want this, that's a good enough reason to change the doctrine, so you win" ?????

That was not the way it was presented. They wanted the prophet to pray for this....and to at least have enough respect for them to meet with them in person. That, also, was not too much to ask, IMO. It's just that women have no power in this church, so they can be treated like errant children.

Why should she join the RLDS? She obviously believes the Salt Lake version is the true church. That is the church in which she was raised and married...and for which she gave 18 months of her life serving a mission. All of which, obviously, means nothing, when the "priesthood" feels threatened.

[alanmolstad]

from the sound of it.....I would say she is ready to consider the Christian God ...

[Libby]

from the sound of it.....I would say she is ready to consider the Christian God ...

I don't think she's ready...not yet. She is appealing the excommunication, all the way to the top...so, she is not done with the church. I'm not sure she ever will be. Time will tell.

[alanmolstad]

I don't know the future....but when I was reading about her in the news and on the Drudge Report I got the feeling that "The metal is now ready for the Maker's hand"

[Phoenix]

Bully God?? Really? <me rolling my eyes> She was not surprised that women were not "instantly" given the priesthood. She WAS surprised that they ex'd her for asking...and mainly for asking for entrance into the priesthood session at conference. That's "really" what they ex'd her for....that she and a bunch of other women had the gall to ask for admission to the "men only" priesthood session. I don't think it would have broken any "sacred" rules to just let them in. I mean, why not?




That was not the way it was presented. They wanted the prophet to pray for this....and to at least have enough respect for them to meet with them in person. That, also, was not too much to ask, IMO. It's just that women have no power in this church, so they can be treated like errant children.

Why should she join the RLDS? She obviously believes the Salt Lake version is the true church. That is the church in which she was raised and married...and for which she gave 18 months of her life serving a mission. All of which, obviously, means nothing, when the "priesthood" feels threatened.
Thanks for explaining it. I probably overstated a few things.

[alanmolstad]

well......consider Libby this verse...

Psalm 34:18

http://biblehub.com/psalms/34-18.htm

[Libby]

Thanks for explaining it. I probably overstated a few things.

You're welcome.

[Libby]

well......consider Libby this verse...

Psalm 34:18

http://biblehub.com/psalms/34-18.htm

Yes....I don't think she is "crushed" yet, but it could be coming...

[alanmolstad]

So...I take it that the girl in this story had to go though the Mormon version of excommunication?

Im not sure what they will mean for her personally?

But I also am not sure what new turns the story will now take?

Has there been any new news about her?...a statement"?...Im not sure.

I have no real information on the lady, but most people have some type of on-line life......perhaps I might do a little looking around and find out whats new?

[Libby]

This is a very good (and in depth) 2 hour interview with Kate Kelly, talking about Ordain Women from the very beginning all the way through the excommunication of Kate.

http://athoughtfulfaith.org/063a-conversation-with-kate-kelly-feminist-and-optimist/

[dberrie2000]

No, it wouldn't. A fundamental change would be, if the church did away with the priesthood, altogether...or some other major change in doctrine.

Did the church change "fundamentally", when blacks were given the priesthood?

Hi Libby:

I'll leave the "fundamental" argument with you--but there is a story about Korah and those who tried to take the priesthood upon themselves--and the consequences:

Numbers 16:22-35---King James Version (KJV)
22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?
23 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
24 Speak unto the congregation, saying, Get you up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
25 And Moses rose up and went unto Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel followed him.
26 And he spake unto the congregation, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of their's, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.
27 So they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side: and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children.
28 And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.
29 If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the Lord hath not sent me.
30 But if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the Lord.
31 And it came to p***, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them:
32 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.
33 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.
34 And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also.
35 And there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.