I had a very good friend and my son go through the bishops court. From the words
from my friend "If I slip and sin again, I will never go through that
again."I personally witnessed my son's court and found it
to be a kangaroo court with the executive secretary making comments and asking
questions.I like how Jesus held his courts as he looked at the
adulteress women "go and sin no more." Christ saw the sorrow in her
heart.Sorry is this comes across negative but it is what is is.
Ah, my dear Brahmabull, you miss my point. My opinion of John Dehlin is not the
object here. Each one of us is accountable for his or her conclusions, so we
must be prayerful and diligent in getting to the truth. Hence, my point is
critical thinking. For example – Since the church or the leaders involved
are not allowed to comment anything about the reasons for a church court (sort
of like a catholic priest and confession,) the only person that can comment is
the person being disciplined, and that person could say anything. For instance,
he (or she) could say they are being disciplined because of a conflict in
doctrine, when in reality, the person might have been called in for adultery.
We would never know because the authorities in charge are bound by silence.
kclady53Your description of Dehlin sounds a lot like a description
of Joseph Smith.
Cats - The lord decides these things? Unless he has told you and
everybody else that personally it is only speculation. Until he comes and tells
me that himself, he didn't decide it. Men decided it.
Sister Isom (a sister) speaking to the world on the church's behalf. Is
that a priesthood role? Looks like Ordain Women just got their answer.
RE: Christian church discipline. “ Warn a divisive person once, and then
warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them” Titus
3:10.“even if we or a messenger(angel) out of heaven may
proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to
you—anathema let him be!”(Galatians 1:8-9). i.e…,The Council of Constantinople .. in 453 CE posthumously excommunicated Origen
because He believed in the Platonic pre-existence and transmigration of souls
The church clearly stated that there is nothing wrong with asking questions.
Asking is not the problem. The problem comes when you dont like the answer and
you try to FORCE changes and cause a big stink when things don't go the way
If the lady doesn't like it, let her leave, and leave the church alone.
This is about how God wants his church ran on earth not how she wants it. If
you believe in a living Prophet and how he acts for God on this earth at this
time then you are a follower. If you don't than you are a non believer,
but don't tell me that I am wrong, don't tell me that the church has
to get with the times, this is not about how the world sees it, it's about
God and his love for us.
I don't believe that it is up to any man or woman to instruct God.
Cultural/Non-doctrinal issues are open for discussion but I don't believe
that we can or should seek to turn back God's natural laws in the matter of
the Priesthood, any more than we should in the matter of gay marriage or gays
holding the Priesthood. Shall we become a church whose doctrine is set by member
votes or by God?
@ RedWinds 7:57 a.m. ----You are at least the second poster on this
board to mention that Dehlin's Disciplinary Council has been delayed. (I
believe it was originally scheduled to be held last evening??)I have
never heard this updated info (regarding a postponement), and am wondering where
you heard that, or what is your confirmed source??Can RedWings (or
anyone else) provide more information... and a source?? Thanks!
It is time to recalibrate our minds. As a member in good standing of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I may hold a personal opinion or question
concerning Church doctrine. Depending on the nature of my opinion or question,
I may not be able to truthfully obtain a temple recommend, but I will not be
excommunicated. I may express my opinion or question in the context of a gospel
discussion during Sunday meetings, during lunch conversations with friends, and
over the dinner table with family. I will not be excommunicated. I may write
on a blog operated by others to express my doubts or questions. I will not be
excommunicated.But if I call and hold a press conference to express
my doubts or questions as if they were the truth, if I set up a website calling
upon the Church to change its doctrine and expressing my opinion or doubt as
truth, if I reach out to the press and send opinion pieces to press outlets with
the aim of putting pressure on the Church and holding the actions of Church
leaders to derision, I likely will be excommunicated or disfellowshipped.
Doug Fabrizio is probably my favorite journalist. He is very smart, he asks
great questions, and is respectful of his guests. I felt he was
trying to stir up a controversy, but then the day prior he'd spent time
with Kelly and Dehlin, who have been on his show a number of times prior to
their interview to espouse their doctrinal doubts. I think the
church PR department has a really tough job, and that there is an ongoing
evolution as to what is and is not acceptable online behavior. This is not just
a Church thing, it's a societal challenge. People are using social media in
ways that expose their ideas to people who might be damaged by false
representation which has resulted in disciplinary actions taken by employers,
for example. The church advocates members ask questions, and find
answers. It's the crux of the LDS faith, and why I believe it. This has not
changed. A careful examination of the facts shows that the leadership and
(perhaps a bit slower, but still) local leaders are aware of these issues and
attempting to be fair.
Goddess Divine - Neither Dehlin or Kelly are being brought bedore
disciplinary council for having doubts. It is their actions in leasding others
into doubt and opposition to church teachings that is the problem. Ms Kelly has
openly deifed church leaders and is actively using the media in an attempt to
shame the church into changin doctrine.It is likely the delay in
Dehlin's council to have time for him to meet with his area seventy is an
attempt ot better understand his motivs and position. That is a reasonable
approach. Kelly, on the other hand, is actively promoting opposition to the
Prophet, which is apostacy...
Joh Dehlin only expresses his personal opinion and doubts in his website. He
doesn't encourage people to have the same doubts he has. He doesn't
tell people to become inactive. There is no reason to threaten John with
ex-communication. It is unfair. " the church teaches there must be
opposition in all things.". I suppose this is the reason people have doubts
about their religion, everyone has doubts, not only Mormons. I Haven't
heard of any other church that ex-communicate their members because they have
doubts. We live in a free society and have the right to express our
doubts and feelings, even though others may not agree with us.
As Ms. Isom says "...the church is not going to publicly discuss private
matters of faith between a specific church member, and that member's local
leader and God," Isom said. "That decision, that process remains
confidential, and we'll respect that."This is true...so
boys and girls...put on your thinking caps because if you read this very
carefully you will pick up on one of John Dehlin's favorite tricks. The
only way this info on Church discipline could have gotten out was from John
Dehlin himself. Publicity = Money, Attention, and in some cases, Sympathy. He a
narcissistic manipulator. Be smart. Don't fall for anything this man says.
@ slowdrive and RedWings RE: "One true church"I recommend
you review Doctrine & Convenants Section 1, especially verse 30:"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to
lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and
out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole
earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church
collectively and not individually—"If the Lord declares
it, and it's scripture as well, I see no problem in stating the same.
@Craig Clark Actually, you're completely wrong on the term excommunication
and mostly wrong on disfellowship. Both words are old words that are largely
unused in common speech today, but their meanings are quite important to
understand. Excommunication does not refer to communication at all, but rather
it refers to the Christian rite of communion or as the LDS refer to it the
Sacrament. Excommunication means to have your privilege to the rite of communion
revoked (as opposed to simply suspended). While disfellowship in this case is
being used to indicate that ones privilege of participation has been limited.
Fellowship means to be part of a group or community. You'd be right in the
fact that disfellowship means to be placed outside the participating group, but
it does not mean to be unfriendly towards.
TO: PRESIDENT CAMACHO @ 10:48 A.M. ---You said: "Then why has
John Dehlin's excommunication been put on hold?"=============================You are being rather presumptuous to
call the current process his "excommunication". Did you
**actually** mean that his "Disciplinary Council" has been put on
hold??And what is your source for that news? Just curious if you
can provide a confirmed reference for that status (for the delay of Brother
Dehlin's Disciplinary Council)??(Or if anyone else has heard
that news, feel free to reply.) Thanks.
rickdoctor, Chandler, AZ:Very thoughtful post - I agree with all of
your thoughts. Thank you
Just seems like to me that you either believe the Prophet is the spokesman for
God or he is not. If you believe that it is wrong that women cannot hold the
priesthood then you believe the prophet is not a spokesman for God, therefore he
is not a true prophet. If he is not a true prophet then the church is not true
and so why stay in it. It is a false church.If you believe he is a
spokesman for God, then you honor what he says because it was the Lord wants.
Who are we to question the Lord? We may not understand why the Lord has it this
way, but he does and we move on and know we will understand in the hear
after.So I just don't understand this group that is fighting
this. It just seems like to me they do not have a testimony of the prophet so
they are fighting just to make a point. If you don't like it find a church
that shares your same belief and allow other churches to have their own beliefs.
slowdive, I wanted to point out that in the LDS religion we believe all will go
to Heaven save a very small amount. It is truly about learning and progressing.
It's about growth.
I have been in many disciplinary counsels unfortunately... I can say in my
experience alone, that LOVE for the member in question has always prevailed.
Two identical situations can result in two different outcomes depending on what
is revealed as best to help the member in question to heal. Sometimes
excommunication will bring the member home... sometimes it is disfellowshipment
or lesser discipline that will correct the behavior and lead to repentance.
Those meetings have been some of the most spiritually powerful meeting I have
ever been involved in, that when you walk out you cannot deny that God is truly
in charge, and loves the individual... one by one. He is in the details of
slowdiveI appreciate your insights.I have noticed a
shift away from the "one true church" idea aomg LDS leaders as well. We
(LDS) do not have a monopoly on access to God. Do I believe that certain key
tenets were restored in 1830? Yes, I do. Does that make me better than my
non-LDS neighbor? No. God loves all His children - even the ones who don't
believe in Him. In the end we will find out the ultimate Truth. Until then,
practicing my religion has made me a better person, and I thank God for that.Time will tell if the OW movement will matter. I do not see it
happening, though. But again, I have served with many strong women in leadership
roles in the Church, and I see that continuing and growing.The
largest women's organization - The Relief Society - was formed by the LDS
Prophet in the 1840s. Say a lot to me about the value of women to the
Sad. I hoped for some real answers, not digested PR gobble that I should have
Changes are inevitable, that's the way it works. The LDS Church is a
'baby church', having existed for only 184 years. Many changes have
occurred during those 184 years. Many more will happen in the next 184, if the
second coming does not pre-empt those, but then who can say what will occur
during the 1000 years of Christ's rule? Priesthood, miracles, knowledge -
peace on the earth will be an amazing change, so who can tell what will happen
when the hearts of most of the people are kind and loving, instead of the baser
human motivations. We will all be more open to what Jesus has said and will say,
and that will exclude so many people trying to put words in His mouth that he
never said. And we will stop trying to tell GOD what to do -- we are so good at
that. Remember, 1000 years. Will our hearts be ready for Christ giving us the
'real deal' exponentially expanded...we are so petty with our
arguments. We will look back and call ourselves very silly indeed!
@Craig Clark"I don’t know what her motives are but I don’t
see how she’s doing harm to anyone."Kate Kelly is an
apostate who is trying to lead members away from the Church's standards.
She is obviously doing plenty of harm.
@Cats" I also don't believe men will ever be able to have babies.
"There are certain anatomical features you need for a fetus to
develop; there's nothing that inherently requires male anatomy to have the
Cats,"....Kelly is only doing it to cause trouble--not because
she is hurt...."______________________________I
don’t know what her motives are but I don’t see how she’s
doing harm to anyone. Exposure to differing viewpoints is something a free
The Lord makes these decisions--not men or women. I don't believe women
have any need or reason to have the priesthood. I also don't believe men
will ever be able to have babies. God is the best assignor or responsibilities
and he as made this clear. This whole discussion is so unproductive. Kelly is only doing it to cause trouble--not because she is hurt. I
don't believe very many people are fooled.
redwing thx for your thoughts. yes, personal inspiration - whether via your H
Ghost, or via my Sunday freshies at Alta - this is the way to go..... ie, again,
IMO, one does not nec need to have a mediated experience w the Divine (variously
interpreted). (see W James Varieties of Religious Exp) where things go swervy is
when any one Org R claims to have sole (soul) access to a Yellow Brick Road to
God -- and that the only way to get to Heaven is to jump on that particular Eden
Express (all religions can't all be right, right?)... i think what
we're seeing w the Ordain Women movement is an example of a church that is
not quite keeping up with the times. more and more women are roaring, women who
have been the most oppressed throughout history (still are: acid to face in
afghan, kidnapped in nigeria, etc). in comparison, pope francis is doing much to
reduce his church's emphasis on Truth Claims and focusing instead on acts
of kindness, openness, acceptance, that there is still a lot that is Not Known.
maybe the LDS church will follow the lead of the Catholics.
@President CamachoDon't know why JD excommunication is on hold.
Your opinion and my opinion probably differ here. However, 1890 Manifesto had
nothing to do with public opinion but with confiscation and destruction of the
Church by the U.S. Government.
@CheesecakeI actually think Isom didn't handle that question very
well, as there are passages in the Bible, D&C, and Articles of Faith that
state men are to hold the offices of the priesthood. That being said, I
wouldn't have a problem if President Monson received a revelation allowing
women to receive the priesthood. It could very well be that at some point in
the future, the world will be so wicked that we could benefit from having
additional priesthood holders. I don't really see that happening (just my
own view), but it also wouldn't bother me. What DOES bother me is the way
Kate Kelly is seeking the change. It's one thing to ask a question and
have a personal belief that women should hold the priesthood, quite another to
start a movement and approach the subject in a demanding way. That's just
not the way change is effected in Christ's church.
slowdrive:Thanks for your comment and clarification...From my perspective, I belive that we do have access to God through personal
revelation and the Holy Ghost. I have had experinces where I have been prompted
and led to certain decisions in my life.I have served with many
strong-minded women in the church. In our council, the women who attend have
their ideas and opinions sought by our bishop. My wife served as a Relief
Society President and basically became our bishop's main source of counsel
and ideas.My priesthood is given to me to bless others. It is not a
status thing. I don't get to pick a better pew or anything becasue I am an
elder. This isn't an equal rights issue. To reduce the issue to that shows
me that Ms. Kelly really doesn't understand the priesthood or the church.
Her argument is self-centered, when priesthood duty is centered on others.
I actually really enjoyed all of the interviews, and Doug did an excellent job.
He asked great questions, and I feel he was equally direct with all 3
(technically four, Joanna Brooks) of them. I find the following interesting
though: What do you have to support your position?Kelly:
Articles of faith (we believe that he will yet reveal...), Doctrine and
Covenants (Emma Smith asked Joseph to pray about something and Section 89 was
the result?), Official Declaration 2 (blacks getting the priesthood). Isom: There's nothing in the scriptures saying that women cannot hold the
priesthood. (paraphrasing of course), but that is how we currently understand
@RedWings"I don't think The Lord cares much for the court of
public opinion..."Then why has John Dehlin's
excommunication been put on hold? What about the 1890 Manifesto? Seems to me
like he cares more than you think.
redwing:you've got to understand that from my a-religious,
relativistic perspective no one has a direct pipeline to God, however
understood/defined. (i happen to think the Eastern Traditions, having to do w
Mind/Consciousness are closer to the truth of the matter.) i think it was
hillel who might have put it best (paraphrasing): all religions preach the
Golden Rule; all else is but commentary (ie, opinion not fact; one person's
burning in the bosom another's heartburn) also, in case you missed it, here
is Kate Kelly in her own words describing how things have shaken out. google her opinion piece in The Guardian"I may be excommunicated
from my church for asking for equal rights" (June 16)i think the
Church would benefit from more strong-minded women----those asking Qs, pushing
boundaries----of the Mormon Expositor kind. mormom women should be loud and
proud like their feminist forebearers, again, IMO, only n=1.
@Craig ClarkI understand your point -- the labels are somewhat archaic.
Not sure if you're LDS or not, but one interesting thing about church
discipline is that it's a very private thing. I served as an executive
secretary to our local bishop for a while, and was often surprised when (in the
privacy of a bishopric meeting) it came up that someone in the ward could not
fill a particular role because he/she was currently under church discipline
(either disfellowshipped or excommunicated). I was surprised because I had no
previous knowledge of the matter, even during my role as the bishop's
secretary and my involvement in all the weekly bishopric meetings and ward
council meetings. So my point is that, yes, these are somewhat archaic words,
but it's important to understand that those individuals are not shut out by
the general populace of the church and those matters are not discussed publicly
by the church as those matters are very private.
"....In the 51-minute interview, Isom also emphasized the central role of
love...."______________________________ If it’s done
in love, why continue using terms like excommunicate and disfellowship?
Excommunicate implies that you no longer speak to them. Disfellowship sounds
like you are no longer to be friendly towards them. Those archaic terms belong
to another era and need to be retired.
I thought Ally Isom did a great job fielding the various questions and had a lot
of great responses to Fabrizio's questions. One thing she pointed out that
I think is important to remember is that excommunication is not the starting
point of church discipline, and it's not a foregone conclusion that that
will be the outcome of these disciplinary counsels. Furthermore,
excommunication is not the same thing as expulsion -- the intent is not to kick
the person out of the church, and at no time is the person asked to not attend
church meetings. There are certain things the individual is asked not to do
while at church meetings, but this is not a matter of kicking out religious
slowdive:The questions were answered by Elder Oaks in the last
Conference.Kate Kelly is not asking questions - she is staging media
publicity stunts to shame the Church into agreeing with her. That is grounds
for disclipline. Why immediately go to the NY Times when the Disciplinary
Council letter was received?I don't think The Lord cares much
for the court of public opinion...
have to say Sister Isom was put in a tough spot by the Brethren but, to my ear,
quoted way too much Bible and Verse-type language ---- felt like i was a Mia
Maid being a bit talked down to (platitudes). the Ordain Women movement is
asking serious Qs that should be addressed, yes, seriously. it has been good to
see the Church admit to some of errors of their past ways via heavily-footnoted
( = at least a veneer of sophistication) repositioning statements (on Polygamy,
Blacks and the Priesthood, DNA research, etc) on LDS.org. that said, all im
reminded of is what happened in the early 1990s. the september 6. except
nowadays with the internet people have access to so much more info, exposing the
stickier/trickier elements of LDS origins. reverting back to a default of
excommunication likely won't help matters. more mormon kids will likely
join the ranks of the Nones -- deciding Org R is not for them. just my jack
This has to be the first and only time Doug Fabrizio has been described as an
attack dog. Only twice did he push very hard: once asking where he could find a
doctrinal prohibition against female priesthood; once when he asked for the
church's definition of a public conversation. Sister Isom ducked both very
simple questions. The worst, however was her leaving the very false impression
that discussions about controversial issues are welcome in church. The PR
department with nothing to hide wouldn't take on-air questions, a standard
feature of thus show.
IMHO, Sister Isom came across very poorly. I was quite disappointed.
You just gotta love journalists with that attack-dog approach. Sister Isom did a
great job IMO.