The June 1

[byu71]

I don't know why y'all are arguing if Kelly lied or not. The bottom line is she was told that she should stop with the OW thing at some point before her disciplinary council and she didn't. In fact, she is still not going to stop with it given every thing she said recently.

The question I have is the whole thing about why these church courts (or disciplinary councils or "courts of love") work very differently for men and women. Let's review the facts:

1. Kate Kelly was endowed and even sealed in the temple.

2. Many high ups in the church have implied that women receive some kind of priesthood when they go to temple. In fact, as late as 1979 women were assisting in giving priesthood blessings. There are all kinds of articles that imply this, for example the following seems to be a nice summary of that logic and other mental gymnastics: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCassl...allardDew.html

3. From what I understand unlike a man with the priesthood Kate Kelly's court consisted of her bishop and his two counselors in advisory roles (and most likely a clerk). A man with the priesthood would have a church court (or disciplinary council or "court of love") consisting of at least 15 men. At least one man is assigned to be his advocate to argue his case. Kate Kelly had no advocate to argue her case.

4. Kate Kelly mentioned in her MSNBC interview that her appeal will be to her area president (one man). On the other hand, a man that appeals does it to the First Presidency.

So why are these "courts of love" so different for men and women? The standard answer is men have the priesthood. Many argue that a women that is endowed in the temple and wears the "garments of the priesthood" have some sort of priesthood as well. So the real answer must be that women do not have any form of the priesthood no matter how many quotes one can find and anything that represents a real court is reserved only for men with the priesthood. Everyone else is subject to one man's decision and a second man's decision if they appeal. That are the rules.

Given that women don't really have any form of priesthood even if they are endowed then it seems logical they should remove the garments of the priesthood (and wear something sexier).

I don't know if this is the case now, but it seems there was a time when a man was ex'd for adultery where as the women weren't. Of course this is in general and there were exceptions.

The church is full of unexplainable, in my mind, inconsistencies. My thought still though is you either deal with them or find a more comfortable and acceptable way for you to worship.

I just can't grasp the need some have to change church doctrine or custom to fit their need.

[Joe Public]

This is hilarious that you're Monday morning quarterbacking her defense in that kangaroo court of hatred.

Leave it to a Ute to think the quarterback plays defense.

[Uncle Ted]

I don't know if this is the case now, but it seems there was a time when a man was ex'd for adultery where as the women weren't. Of course this is in general and there were exceptions.

I know that in my personal experience that women don't usually get excommunicated for adultery and this article points out there may be reasons for that:

In my experience, four of the five of the men I know have been excommunicated for adultery, but none of the four women have been. Considering marital vows of fidelity run both ways, I am continually mystified by why church leaders appear to treat women differently than men for the same sin.


Here are a few reasons why this may be:
1. Women are more vulnerable than men, so should be treated more carefully and not punished as harshly.


2. Excommunication is a blessing, not a punishment. It is a way of separating the sinner from God and the church so he or she can truly repent and come back. If this is true, then perhaps women are not worthy of this blessing, or can achieve true repentance without excommunication.

3. Women are not accountable for their actions in the way men are.

4. God holds husbands to a higher standard of fidelity than wives because they preside in marriage.

http://www.the-exponent.com/adultery...-is-it-sexist/


Apparently Kate Kelly should look at her excommunication as a blessing. Also, I think she has a good chance for appeal if she uses the argument that "women are not accountable for their actions in the way men are".

[SeattleUte]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimor...nicating-kate/

[Northwestcoug]

Given that women don't really have any form of priesthood even if they are endowed then it seems logical they should remove the garments of the priesthood (and wear something sexier).

That's air-tight logic right there. I'm convinced!

[byu71]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimor...nicating-kate/

That was heartwarming and touching the burial and parting of her nan.

Comparing that to this Kate Kelly thing is OK for her to do, but if she tried to make that comparison with one of my relatives I would be pissed.

She doesn't believe Kate Kelly has suffered any spiritual kind of death. To claim so is bull. Think about it. For her to believe Kate suffered a spiritual death she would have to indeed believe the church was the one and only true church on the earth and led by a Prophet of God with all the power and authority that entails.

I call bull shit on the analogy. Kate has suffered a social death. Quite a bit different death than the one she eloquently described for her nan.

[TripletDaddy]

I don't know why y'all are arguing if Kelly lied or not. The bottom line is she was told that she should stop with the OW thing at some point before her disciplinary council and she didn't. In fact, she is still not going to stop with it given every thing she said recently.

It would be awesome if she were to become a regular here, posting under the moniker, "KateLied."

[Katy Lied]

[TripletDaddy]

KellyLied?

[creekster]

KellyLied?

Too androgynous

[SeattleUte]

Kate has suffered a social death. Quite a bit different death than the one she eloquently described for her nan.

omg 71 is now an unbeliever.

[byu71]

omg 71 is now an unbeliever.

Well, enough of a non-believer to know I don't know whether Kate has suffered a so called spiritual death or not.

Like I said, unlike the author of the article, as a non-believer I wouldn't go out there tugging at heart strings comparing the death of a real human being to some kind of rhetorical death from a faith I didn't fully believe in.

[Uncle Ted]

Ouch... And in the SL Trib:

Op-ed: Decision has been made for you, LDS feminists

Few events in the life of a church can match the warmth and hopefulness of a ceremony to welcome a new baby into the community.


Earlier this year, I stood before my Protestant congregation and held my 5-month-old son as two pastors (who both happened to be women) laid their hands on him and prayed for him. We asked that the congregation share in the responsibility of his Christian upbringing and prayed for the day that my son would come to know the Lord as his own. As his mother, my primary role in his Christian nurture was acknowledged by my presence and participation in the ceremony, and tears slipped from my eyes as we finished. To say it was a special moment for me as a mother would be an understatement.

I have to wonder why the LDS Church is so determined to ensure that its own women can never write what I just wrote, that its new mothers only experience such ceremonies as bystanders rather than as participants. Furthermore, my LDS friends tell me that when a father comes under church discipline, he will be barred from participation in ceremonies such as the blessing and naming of his children as part of his punishment. This outsider finds it curious that the church punishes unrighteous fathers by treating them like faithful mothers.

In my time as a student at Brigham Young University, I asked my share of questions about church policies that govern LDS women. Frequently I had my concerns brushed off with magical hand-waving terms such as "separate gender roles" (modern-day codespeak for "women are inferior") coupled with insistence that the Mormon church really, really does value its women and regard them as equals.


I never hear anything at my own church about how special women are; perhaps we are just too busy giving them important and visible roles to bother? If you have to constantly reassure someone that you really do love them, value them and respect them, it may be because your actions are telling a different story. In any case, there is no such thing as equality without equal access to authority. Therefore, any talk of Mormon women being equal to Mormon men free from ordination to the priesthood is perfect nonsense.


Kate Kelly wanted to change all of this, to usher Mormon women into full spiritual and temporal equality with Mormon men, into full participation in the life of the church. So she came to a men’s meeting and asked for admission. And even though that meeting had empty seats, she was turned away and, ultimately, thrown out of the church for her efforts. What does that mean?


It means that if you believe in and advocate for the equality of men and women, Mormon leaders would rather have an empty seat.


It means that if you believe in the biblical pattern of women as prophets and want to see that realized in this dispensation, Mormon leaders would rather have an empty seat.


It means that if you do not think the punishment of a faithless father should match the regular treatment of a righteous mother, Mormon leaders would rather have an empty seat.


I cannot tell my LDS feminist friends what to do in this difficult time, and now it looks like I won’t have to. The prophets have spoken and the thinking has been done.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...n-lds.html.csp

[ERCougar]

"This outside finds it curious that the church punishes unrighteous fathers by treating them like faithful mothers."
Ouch, indeed.

[TripletDaddy]

That line was basically a huge burn. Pass the gauze!