The June 1

[creekster]

I can imagine her stake president asking her to publicize that she's not a member in good standing. after all, the whole purpose of this is to debunk the idea that ordain women is a faithful movement.

Imagining it and it being accurate are different. Honest question: Do you know if he asked that specifically?

[creekster]

Painful.

Speaking of painful, you and Creekster just need to hug it out.

I'm not a hugger.

[Blueintheface]

I'm not a hugger.

What about the bro hug? Grab the right hands, slap the back, quick withdraw?

[ERCougar]

Imagining it and it being accurate are different. Honest question: Do you know if he asked that specifically?

Nope. Taking her at her word, admittedly. Sounds plausible enough, given her high profile. She was very specific about the instruction to publicize her probation or he would do it, and i think it would be pretty counterproductive to lie about that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is the probation letter, btw.

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/up...Kate-Kelly.pdf

[Jeff Lebowski]

Nope. Taking her at her word, admittedly. Sounds plausible enough, given her high profile. She was very specific about the instruction to publicize her probation or he would do it, and i think it would be pretty counterproductive to lie about that.

This is referenced here:

http://rationalfaiths.com/kate-kelly...llow-handbook/

According to Kate Kelly, the reason she came forward last week with the letters was because she was told by President Wheatley that if she did not comply with the demands he placed on her in regards to her (illegal) informal probation, he would go public with it. This, in response and seemingly retaliation to her public actions in conjunction with Ordain Women.

[Non Sequitur]

The irony there is delicious. Tearing up her life in the name of God? But she supposedly thinks these 'people like them" are acting for God and with his priesthood, which she supposedly values. The church is not a club. It is not open to popular vote. If she finds its current form unacceptable, and if she is unwilling to moderate her behavior as requested, then she can leave. In fact, I would guess she would likely want to leave. But her life is not torn up as a result of the publicity, as she had already chosen to be a public figure. Unlike the ward leaders, who did not choose to be public figures.

And my opinion above was not a 'judgment' it was an opinion based upon observation and reported behavior. IF you disagree with it feel free to say why. But perhaps you prefer the much more noble Facebook forum, where you reveal your true identity. As you wish. My only point is that the church is either what it claims, and so it should be dealt with accordingly, or it is not at all what it claims, and there isn't much reason to deal with it at all. I am not sure I see a lot of room in between.

I'm still surprised when otherwise intelligent people fall back on the "love it or leave it" retort. If Americans followed that line of thinking, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote and all the enlightened people would live in Canada.

[Maximus]

I'm still surprised when otherwise intelligent people fall back on the "love it or leave it" retort. If Americans followed that line of thinking, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote and all the enlightened people would live in Canada.

the church is a democracy?

[wuapinmon]

I don't care if you call it misogynist, sexist, or banana fruitcake. It's the same damn thing.

Bananas are an excellent source of potassium.

[Non Sequitur]

the church is a democracy?

Of course not, everyone knows it's an aristocracy. All the power in the hands of a few well-heeled families who aren't really in touch with their subjects.

[Green Monstah]

the church is a democracy?

Annnnnnnd....round we go (it's a fair point, but we're now undoubtedly going in circles).

[SeattleUte]

The irony there is delicious. Tearing up her life in the name of God? But she supposedly thinks these 'people like them" are acting for God and with his priesthood, which she supposedly values. The church is not a club. It is not open to popular vote. If she finds its current form unacceptable, and if she is unwilling to moderate her behavior as requested, then she can leave. In fact, I would guess she would likely want to leave. But her life is not torn up as a result of the publicity, as she had already chosen to be a public figure. Unlike the ward leaders, who did not choose to be public figures.

And my opinion above was not a 'judgment' it was an opinion based upon observation and reported behavior. IF you disagree with it feel free to say why. But perhaps you prefer the much more noble Facebook forum, where you reveal your true identity. As you wish. My only point is that the church is either what it claims, and so it should be dealt with accordingly, or it is not at all what it claims, and there isn't much reason to deal with it at all. I am not sure I see a lot of room in between.

No, here's the irony of your statement. The LDS Church doesn't even have a coherently stated doctrine anywhere. Now we see the dissembling that the priesthood ban was not "doctrine" but "policy". Nowhere is it stated in any canon that women can't be ordained. Yet rather than ask the LDS Church to reevaluate the prejudicial administration of its supposed blessings as it did with the priesthood ban women are told to leave if they don't like it.

[SeattleUte]

People like them? How about people like you? Why don't you put it out there for everyone, proving the courage of your convictions?

In my mind her behavior suggest that she does not believe the church is the instrument of God on earth. If she did, she would not behave this way, even if she held her currently stated opinions on gender issues and sought a change in those policies in the current organization. Instead she, like many here and elsewhere, is treating the church like it is a social club and acting like she wants to change the charter to suit her interests. I understand the implications of both of these positions, and that I understand there are merits for both positions, but the fact is that those two positions are not likely to be reconciled at the level of protecting perceived doctrine or orthodoxy and her behavior shows where she falls. As someone else said in this thread, she should not be surprised that she is being treated this way and her current behavior simply reinforces the views of those who see her as an unreasonable, non-believer who is threatening the church (whether or not she is trying to burn it down).

Everyone knows who I am.

[Pheidippides]

Painful.

Speaking of painful, you and Creekster just need to hug it out.

I think we all need to hug it out.

This issue, in my opinion, is the most divisive one I've seen, perhaps ever. It a severe blow to progmos. It reminds exmos why they left (and for me at least provides a measure of personal vindication). It gives TBMs the same vindication on the other side. And that's without dealing with all the fine nuances.

I'm eating lunch with my former bishop tomorrow (he's still a bishop). I hope this doesn't even come up. I just want to chat about our kids and jobs and stuff. But I'm afraid it will. Frankly, part of me wonders if he's coming as an emissary of the stake I refused to meet with this last Sunday.

[Katy Lied]

She has set her sights too low. She needs to be going after God for sending his Son, and not some equally qualified daughter. Ordain Women is fighting for the right to have women in the custodial ranks.

I dont understand someone who leaves mormonism over this then converts to be a christian, or buddhist, or muslim, or jew. Most every god-pantheon is headed by a male. The only non-hypocritical stance is to become an atheist.