The June 1

[Pheidippides]

Wow, did we really just have a Tex sighting? My day is now complete!

[New Mexican Disaster]

Wow, did we really just have a Tex sighting? My day is now complete!

Jackals come out when they smell blood.

[TripletDaddy]

Tex is like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House. "Remain calm...all is well!"

[UVACoug]

Should we have to give up and betray our culture and become totally disassociated with Mormons because we believe that the current "doctrinal" position of the church leadership is behind the times of where it will eventually wind up? Should we be thrown out because we disagree that the conclusions drawn by the orthodox are not those that we draw from the same teachings of Christ? Should we be thrown out of church because we want to reform from within instead of ranting and raving about the problems we see within the institution? Maybe the answer is yes, but if the price that everyone must pass a loyalty oath or they are tossed, then what is the point of reactivation and missionary work?

I agree with FM Coug. Tent just got smaller. I think a lot of people have a lot of thinking to do. Can the relationship still work if they want you gone?

I'm not sure how you took most of that away from my post, with the exception of the "reform from within" question. My answer to that is, yes ... if your goal is to "reform from within," you probably aren't going to be welcome. The Church isn't a democracy. It isn't your Church. It is Christ's Church. Only he gets to reform it from within. I'm not sure how someone familiar with the Church would find this surprising.

[Northwestcoug]

The bolded is your inference and I highly doubt it's correct.

Stack is reporting it:

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5...ormon.html.csp

[Portland Ute]

Stack is reporting it:

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5...ormon.html.csp

Oh, jeez...another "mass" resignation.

Which accomplishes...nothing.

[Northwestcoug]

Oh, jeez...another "mass" resignation.

Which accomplishes...nothing.

I missed that part. I was referring to the claim that Kelly's parents had their TRs revoked because they wouldn't take down their public support from her website. Moliere didn't believe it.

[Mormon Red Death]

I've spent a lot (probably too much) of time thinking about this and I think I understand the fundamental disconnect between the Orthodox and the so-called ProgMos. Do the actions of Kate and John meet the Church's definition of apostasy? Probably so. The problem I and others have with this is that the "our way or the highway" Church is not what we want the Church to be. And the fundamental tenets of the Gospel don't require it. So yes, it is of man and I am okay with being critical of that. SU has used the term totalitarian. While that is pretty extreme, it's not totally wrong either. Christ was one to invite, not force or threaten with real earthly consequences if you don't toe the line (i.e. no temple recommend). And if anybody tries to say there are not earthly, painful consequences to lack of a recommend, you are a complete idiot. Participation in some of the most important events in family members' lives should not be contingent on Church membership (and more).

My beef is that there is no room in the Church to be "kind of Mormon". You're either all in or to some folks, you're out, a fence sitter, etc. To the most extreme this extends to culture, politics, etc.

The big tent we've dreamed of just got a lot smaller. And that makes me sad.

Please see my signature.

[Uncle Ted]

It seems the only thing constant about the doctrine of who can get the priesthood (and practice whatever) is that it is always changing.

A strange bit of hyperbole.

The doctrine of the priesthood has been evolving since the church was founded and has continued to evolve. For example, the latest installment was the church's essay on race and the priesthood which clearly puts to bed the all the doctrines or justifications (given repeatedly by men in the highest offices of the church) why blacks where not given the priesthood for a period of time after Joseph Smith's death. (Of course, this makes one wonder just how much other bullish*t doctrine like this there is out there.)

It seems a similar ban on the priesthood was given to women for whatever reasons. It is fairly well documented that Joseph Smith had a vision of women and priestly authority. He ordained Emma Smith and told the first relief society that he was going to make them "a kingdom of priests". Women were even giving priesthood blessings (this continued with BY) but slowly that all stopped except in isolated cases like when Bruce R. McConkie asked Carmilla Kimball to assist in giving her husband a blessing.

Clearly about the only thing constant about doctrine surrounding the priesthood is that it has been changed and most likely continue to change. Maybe it will take a few excommunications (and yet another PR black eye for the church) before the next round of change will happen. History seems to repeat itself. (I wonder if the church will ever apologize to folks like Byron Marchant.)

[Moliere]

Stack is reporting it:

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/5...ormon.html.csp

:yikes:

[ERCougar]

Haters like SU will call it sophistry in their typical condescending way, but there is a real difference between holding an unorthodox belief and trying to persuade other members of the Church to join in that unorthodox belief. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a disciple of John Dehlin tell me that everything he says is wonderful because he is a "member in good standing" ... or how Dehlin has close friends who are general authorities that know what he is doing and approve of it. I've heard similar things said by defenders of Kate Kellie. Is it any wonder that the Church would want to disassociate itself from people that it believes are leading vulnerable members astray?

I have been paying attention to Dehlin for a long time and I have literally never heard anyone say anything like "Everything he says is wonderful because he's a member in good standing!"

I've also not seen much in the way of trying to urge people away from the church and "to their cult", as you say. It's telling that I would have a hard time even saying what that "cult" would believe in or represent. The closest thing would be these local Mormon Stories communities and gatherings, but those have largely been done away with. Both have been outspoken in their opinions, but should one really be excommunicated for speaking one's mind? I'd refer you to this: http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/06/1...communication/.

In the end, the Church can do what it sees the need to grow and strengthen its members. This morning, John and Kate are on GMA. This continues to work out really well for it!

[UVACoug]

I have been paying attention to Dehlin for a long time and I have literally never heard anyone say anything like "Everything he says is wonderful because he's a member in good standing!"

I've also not seen much in the way of trying to urge people away from the church and "to their cult", as you say. It's telling that I would have a hard time even saying what that "cult" would believe in or represent. The closest thing would be these local Mormon Stories communities and gatherings, but those have largely been done away with. Both have been outspoken in their opinions, but should one really be excommunicated for speaking one's mind? I'd refer you to this: http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/06/1...communication/.

In the end, the Church can do what it sees the need to grow and strengthen its members. This morning, John and Kate are on GMA. This continues to work out really well for it!

Really? I think I've seen such things said on this very board. Dehlin's objective is clear to anyone who is willing to take an objective look at him. So is Kellie's. Their mission is to convert and reform, not to express their opinion. I don't really think that can be seriously debated (although I'm sure many will try).

[Surfah]

I'm not sure how you took most of that away from my post, with the exception of the "reform from within" question. My answer to that is, yes ... if your goal is to "reform from within," you probably aren't going to be welcome. The Church isn't a democracy. It isn't your Church. It is Christ's Church. Only he gets to reform it from within. I'm not sure how someone familiar with the Church would find this surprising.

The Church isn't unlike this message board. Everyone thinks it's democratic but it is not. Common consent misleads many to believe that their voice is really that important. When a decision is made that is not popular everyone gets their underwear in a bunch for a few days. A statement is released. Discussion with conditions is allowed for a short time. Some threaten to leave. One or two may actually do that (rare). After a week it is generally forgotten and life goes on. SJBH.

[ERCougar]

Really? I think I've seen such things said on this very board. Dehlin's objective is clear to anyone who is willing to take an objective look at him. So is Kellie's. Their mission is to convert and reform, not to express their opinion. I don't really think that can be seriously debated (although I'm sure many will try).

I'm sure that link will be easy to provide then. lol

You are correct about the objective look part. How would you describe each of their objectives?

[Moliere]

Really? I think I've seen such things said on this very board. Dehlin's objective is clear to anyone who is willing to take an objective look at him. So is Kellie's. Their mission is to convert and reform, not to express their opinion. I don't really think that can be seriously debated (although I'm sure many will try).

I don't think Dehlin's objective is to convert and reform. Dehlin's main objective is to discuss Mormonism in an objective way, outside the restrictions of church hierarchy and without the angry exmo factor. He does a good job with this balance, however he has at times gone a bit too far in both directions. I'm still not fully understanding the council for Dehlin. I must have missed something's he's said or done because his podcasts are merely exploring Mormonism and he's had both faithful and critical guests. Granted I haven't listened to one of his podcasts in years so maybe I'm behind the times. However, the council convened for Dehlin tells me that the church doesn't even want us searching out our own history unless it is through the correlated channels.

I can better understand KK's council but I still don't think it's necessary. GBH himself basically put out there the idea of agitating for women's ordination. OW agitated and the church rebuffed, twice, and from what I understand OW had decided to be a bit less vocal and more grassrootsy. Seems like they are following what the church leadership told them to do, except they were a bit slow to move.