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....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]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

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]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

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]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

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]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

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]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

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

There ya go! lol

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

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]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

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]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

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]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

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]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

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.