The June 1

[SoonerCoug]

A power vacuum at the very top (prophet) might be part of the problem.

What I mean to say is that as Monson's health is deteriorating and his dementia is worsening, the apostles may be left to their own devices.

I seriously doubt that the Q of the 12 collectively endorses excommunication of Kate Kelly. Instead, I think there are several extremists among them who are potentiating this crack down.

[ERCougar]

SU--this is the reason why we dishonest and milquetoast progmos stay:
'The message of “Why the Church Is As True As the Gospel” certainly applies to the minorities in the Church, whose efforts to belong and serve are made even more exasperating by the hostility, uneasiness, and even sentimental patronizing by the majority. But the es*say’s main message is to that majority, who set the cultural tone of the Church. We are the ones who must constantly remind ourselves that the Church is not a place to go for comfort, to get our own prejudices validated, but a place to comfort others, even to be afflicted by them. It is a revealed and effec*tive opportunity to give—to learn and experience the meaning of the Atonement and its power to change us through uncon*ditional love. It is a place where we have many chances to re*pent and forgive—if, for a change, we can focus on our own failings and the needs of others to grow through their and our imperfect efforts.'

[UVACoug]

Ah...you hit on it. This is the crux. IF it is doctrine. From the Church's response, it would seem that the leadership DOES think it is doctrine, however, they lack the desire to make the pronouncement that it IS doctrine. Maybe it is because they don't want the blowback from the media and general public. Maybe its because they know there isn't really any canonical support.

Regardless, it would seem that a firm statement that ordination of women is in opposition to the doctine of the church would end this. Or, conversely, if they have taken it before the lord, make the pronouncement of revelation. It certainly is a revelation that would be pertinent to the general body of the church.

However, not much in the line of revelation goes on these days. Usually, there are clarifications or vague statements from the church publicist.

Has President Monson taken this before the Lord? If so, what is the answer? Was their an answer? Still no answer but waiting?

I mean anything would probably appease people, but just telling them to shut up and go away doesn't seem to be the way to go.

I'm not sure it is as easy as calling God up on the phone and getting an immediate answer (although that is what I was taught in primary).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is that any less logical than, "They've lied before, but they're not lying this time?"

See NS and DDD posts above.

[ERCougar]

Brother Jake's latest:

[SeattleUte]

I think this latest Brother Jake is not his best work. His best work is parody like the BOM musical.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Kate Kelly's letter to bishop and SP:

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/up...of-Defense.pdf

A brief submitted in her defense:

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

Disciplinary council tomorrow.

[ERCougar]

Kate Kelly's letter to bishop and SP:

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/up...of-Defense.pdf

A brief submitted in her defense:

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

Disciplinary council tomorrow.

Wow.
The pictures were a little cheesy, but the documentation of her repeated correspondence is pretty damning, and you really can't doubt her sincerity. I would hate to be on that council. They have really been put in an awful sport.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wow.
The pictures were a little cheesy, but the documentation of her repeated correspondence is pretty damning, and you really can't doubt her sincerity. I would hate to be on that council. They have really been put in an awful sport.

I agree. She specifically asked for feedback at multiple times and got zero response. Then they drop the hammer? That is terrible.

On the other hand, that brief is a disaster will probably backfire. Too long-winded and over-reaching. Pick your strongest points and articulate a short but powerful response.

[Pheidippides]

Kate Kelly's letter to bishop and SP:

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/up...of-Defense.pdf

A brief submitted in her defense:

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

Disciplinary council tomorrow.

The brief is crap, save the point about local/central involvement (does anybody still doubt that this is being run from the top in light of Denver Snuffer's description of his process?). Can we get off of the due process/fairness issue already? The church can (and does) do whatever the hell it wants, regardless of what's in the handbook. It's a private entity, no matter how hard it tried to be a government in the 1800s.

I actually liked her letter. I expected it to be legalistic along the lines of the brief; instead, it was personal appeal to her own belief and Mormonness. I think it's probably posturing more for the outside than the bishopric itself, but that's probably not a bad strategy in a world in which you think it's a kangaroo court.

I sorta feel bad for her bishop. I think he's being forced to do this. I think he'd rather have no part of the 1000+ letters he's about to receive. I think he's about to incur the wrath of every one of those letter writers and more besides. I would love nothing more for him to defy expectation and say no action, or resign his calling over it very publicly. But I don't expect either of those things will happen.

The question I really have is this: how long until Joanna Brooks gets called in too? She wrote a pretty scathing column yesterday.

I know two people in my stake who are gone over this, and those are just the ones that contacted me. The current line from local leaders here is that they expect the church is going to have to contract to purify itself, and that's not a bad thing.

[creekster]

I agree. She specifically asked for feedback at multiple times and got zero response. Then they drop the hammer? That is terrible.

On the other hand, that brief is a disaster will probably backfire. Too long-winded and over-reaching. Pick your strongest points and articulate a short but powerful response.

I agree with this. The letter about her life is nice but irrelevant as it never addresses the charge (bear in mind our own beloved SU could put together something similar for his younger days) and the brief in support is far too long and never really makes a compelling point. The fact is her actions do seem to qualify as apostasy under the handbook definition.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Kate Kelly's letter to bishop and SP:

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/up...of-Defense.pdf

A brief submitted in her defense:

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

Disciplinary council tomorrow.

So she was a nice, faithful, TBM Oregonian, then she moved to Utah and went to BYU. Interesting.

[ERCougar]

I agree with this. The letter about her life is nice but irrelevant as it never addresses the charge (bear in mind our own beloved SU could put together something similar for his younger days) and the brief in support is far too long and never really makes a compelling point. The fact is her actions do seem to qualify as apostasy under the handbook definition.

Maybe this has been discussed here somewhere, but what is the handbook definition of apostasy? Not being argumentative, just honestly curious.

[creekster]

Maybe this has been discussed here somewhere, but what is the handbook definition of apostasy? Not being argumentative, just honestly curious.

It's set out in the supporting brief, where it states:

The Handbook definition changes the traditional meaning of “apostasy” substantially, to
the point where it would hardly be recognized anywhere outside of a Church Disciplinary
Council. It is defined as those who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its
leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after
they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority.3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural
marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or higher authority.
4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings

[ERCougar]

It's set out in the supporting brief, where it states:

I must be missing this brief. Sounds like it's pointless anyway so I won't bother.

In any case, I don't think it's at all obvious that she meets that definition. 1) would be the only possible application so i guess it depends on your definition of "opposition".