Religion
Related: About this forumKate Kelly laments her ‘painful’ excommunication from Mormon church
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58104587-78/church-kelly-women-ordain.html.csp"Ordain Women founder Kate Kelly learned Monday that she has been excommunicated from the LDS Church for "conduct contrary to the laws and order" of the faith.
Today, Kellys former ecclesiastical leader in Virginia, Bishop Mark Harrison, contacted Kelly by email to inform her that the all-male panel of judges who tried her in absentia on Sunday, June 22, has convicted her on the charge of apostasy and has decided to excommunicate her, which is the most serious punishment that can be levied by a church court," the group announced in a statement.
The decision to force me outside my congregation and community is exceptionally painful," Kelly said in a statement on Ordain Womens website. "Today is a tragic day for my family and me as we process the many ways this will impact us, both in this life and in the eternities. I love the gospel and the courage of its people. Dont leave. Stay, and make things better.""
catbyte
(34,503 posts)sexist, and destructive "religion" the LDS church is. I can't think of one good thing to say about them.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"I love the gospel and the courage of its people. Dont leave. Stay, and make things better."
...it's unfortunate she's unable to recognize the futility of this advice. Staying in the Mormon church (or any church) to try to make things better by influencing their policy on things like ordaining women is like staying in the Flat Earth society to try to make things better by influencing their position on immigration reform.
Whether you're successful or not, you're still stuck in the flat earth society. Any change that would correct that would mean the effective dissolution of the organization. So why not just get it over with and get out now? (For those not already forcibly removed of course)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Like the article says, this has done nothing but increase support for her cause. Staying in organizations in order to bring change takes courage. Leaving them can also take courage, but it may also be a sign of cowardice.
Much as I have serious issues with the LDS church, they have shown the capacity in the past to make substantial changes when they were faced with reality.
The only people stuck in the "flat earth society" are those whose dogmatic views won't allow them to see potential for change, like some anti-atheists who paint all religion and religious organizations with the same broad brush.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)To leave the faith one was raised in, potentially losing family members and friends in the process?
You think that's cowardice?
I can't believe you went there.
[img][/img]
cbayer
(146,218 posts)your cut and past image really doesn't say much.
opening ones eyes that an organization is steeped in utter bullshit beliefs is a sign of cowardice.
That's it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Do try to pay attention.
"Like the article says, this has done nothing but increase support for her cause. "
And like I said, regardless of whether her cause ultimately succeeds or not, the end result isn't going to matter because you're still going to be left with The Mormon Church. A Morman Church that is slightly nicer and fuzzier towards women is still the Mormon Church. Just like a Flat Earth Society that has somewhat sane views on immigration policy is still the Flat Earth Society.
"Much as I have serious issues with the LDS church, they have shown the capacity in the past to make substantial changes when they were faced with reality. "
You say substantial changes, I say bowing to political inevitability... which left them, you will note, still a backward reactionary religious organization. Just like they will remain whatever the outcome of this particular argument. Changes substantial enough to undo THAT would be, in effect, ending the church. So they might as well get it over with and just walk away from it now. (And FYI, THAT is seeing potential for change... significantly greater and more beneficial change that that which you are trumpeting while accusing others of not having the vision you possess.)
edhopper
(33,650 posts)of any of the beliefs of a religion founded by a con man, lead by a genocidal zealot and whose origins was discredited contemporaneously.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)would think I might.
What I defend is this woman who is trying to make a change in the organization to which she belongs.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Suggesting it could be an "act of cowardice."
That's bullshit, and highly disappointing to read here.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)this particular church, AND YET, it is not somehow worthy of defense. I see.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I'll just take the sum total content of your response being an emoticon to indicate you have nothing to say in rebuttal about the actual point of my comment now that your attention has been redirected to it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...someone would respond to my detailed explanation of a point of argument with nothing but a laughing emoticon IRL, thus causing me to respond like that?
Exactly?
Do YOU do THAT IRL? Hmmm?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)preceded making your point by saying, "Do try and pay attention".
And yes, if someone says something so dismissive and haughty in a real life conversation, I am likely to just chuckle and walk away.
So your "detailed explanation" may not even be considered if your audience just walks away or tunes you out after you insult them.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Why is it OK for you but not for others?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...we find ourselves with cbayer playing the victim card. Someone asked you to pay attention in direct response to you posting a reply which completely ignored the entire substance of what you were replying to. Oh poor you, how insulting. Why are people such meanies.
You then proceeding to AGAIN ignore the entirety of what was then explained to you and dismiss it with nothing but a laughing smilie face though... that wasn't insulting or dismissive or condescending. Oh no. That was you being the mature grown up and walking away from the conversation like an adult. That's what we're supposed to believe here?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Please take pity on me and try not to be such a meanie to me. I beseech you!
Perhaps with your enlightened help I can grow into a mature grown up such as yourself and than all of you (whoever you imagine that "we" to be) will believe me.
I can always dream!
:insertwhateversmilieyyouwanthere:
trotsky
(49,533 posts)is it really that surprising so many have figured it out?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)... if you can, that is. Like everything else attributed Joseph Smith, it's as stimulating as general anesthesia.
I make this suggestion because I assume the "substantial change" you are talking about was the 1978 decision to admit blacks to the priesthood. Knowing what I know, I'd hesitate to overpraise them. Here's the official "revelation":
On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:
In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.
President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:
June 8, 1978
To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:
Dear Brethren:
As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in Gods eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.
Sincerely yours,
Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
The First Presidency
Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.
The official stance of the LDS church is, up until 1978, it was perfectly right and moral to treat blacks as inferiors, and only through diligent prayer did the good Mormons finally persuade God to change His mind about the moral inferiority of dark-skinned peoples. Not only did they make no apologies for past misdeeds, they made themselves out to be goddamned heroes.
And they don't make this change when faced with "reality". It was 1978. History had sided with the civil rights activists of the previous decade, and already the LDS church looked to the rest of the country like the KKK with with only slightly less silly formal wear. The Quorum bowed to political pressure, knowing full well they would have a difficult time playing politics on the national field if they looked like a bunch of racist mountain folk.
And they didn't make these changes in such a way that future generations could learn from them. With no admission of wrongdoing, they've practically ensured the same situations will arise in the future with regards to other classes of people Joseph Smith didn't think highly of (women, chiefly).
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I was not aware of that level of detail before.
Not only did they make no apologies for past misdeeds, they made themselves out to be goddamned heroes.
Amen, brother!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Thank you, Mormons!!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)nibble away at god's resolve like that.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I also note the explicit 'fuck women' sentiment throughout that document.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Between 1985 and 1988, he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second-highest authority in the LDS church.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)the Book of Mormon going through Utah. It was pretty entertaining.
Again, I am not interested in defending the mormon church, just those within it who are fighting for change.
They have reasons, as you cite, to reconsider their position about women's role within the church. If enough pressure is brought to bear, they will do what is most expedient and in their best interest. I don't really care how they frame it or report it, to be honest. What I care about is seeing them being to change their position on women and GLBT people.
I think that this woman is doing a courageous thing and she has my support.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I think if an atheist had posted that, you and your husband would be tut-tutting them for the "anti-theist bigotry."
We need you guys to put together a list of which religious beliefs are OK to say aren't serious.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)... and I have to agree with Mark Twain. That book is chloroform in print.
I'm not much in the mood for a debate today, but suffice it to say that I am not upset the LDS Church is sensitive to political pressure. Rather, I'm talking about the long game. Reversing a bigoted policy without addressing the issue of the infallibility of the church is simply kicking the can a mile down the road. Eventually, we're going to catch up to it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Have you seen "Book of Mormon" by any chance?
If not, if you get the opportunity, I recommend that you do whatever you have to do to see it.
In terms of the infallibility of the church, I thought the mormons had a nice loophole in that area because they have living prophets. Am I wrong about that?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I have heard it is pretty good, though.
As for the living prophet thing, yes, they technically do. They stipulate that any "revelation" to a living prophet overrides the revelations made to dead prophets. This allows them to reverse decisions made in previous eras that, by today's standards, would seem regressive. But, as you can see with the 1978 general order, when they do exercise this prerogative, they do it in such a way as to leave the church blameless. The previous prophets were not wrong for being racists, God simply changed his mind because the good Mormons of planet earth had prayed so hard for the poor people whose sin was made manifest by the darkness of their skin. In the end, the church is, and was, and always will be, always right.
Also, the 1978 general order is something of an anomaly because it reverses a policy "revealed", I believe, to Joseph Smith himself. No matter what happens in regard to women in the church, it will be a long, cold day in hell before the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator ever admits Joseph Smith was wrong.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)when it comes to infallibility. It allows you to change positions pretty much at will.
That they leave themselves blameless is not surprising, is it?
While I am not interested in defending the mormon church, a god that changes it's mind is rather appealing to me. Were there to be a god, I would value you that as attribute.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yeah, well, as long as there are people around to perpetuate that interpretation, sure.
"The only people stuck in the "flat earth society" are those whose dogmatic views won't allow them to see potential for change, like some anti-atheists who paint all religion and religious organizations with the same broad brush."
How familiar with the Mormon faith are you, just out of curiosity?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)She plans to appeal and, as the article say, this has done nothing but rally more support.
Keep it up!
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)It will be interesting to see what they think of this.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I applaud her attempts to bring equality to the Mormon Priesthood. I wish her the best in her future advocacy.