Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

A place for conservative women to discuss true women's liberation, the role of women in healing America, the truth about feminism and more...
Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Benjamin_LK »

sen6b wrote:
survivaldealer wrote:If you view the church as a social club, that you join and want to enforce politically correctness and equality, then changing rules and procedures is similar to Boy Scouts deciding to include homosexuals.

But if you believe that God is in charge and does things His way, then one would have to take it up with God, since the Brethren do not have the authority to change God's rules. Of course, if one does not believe that God is in charge and it is just a social club, then why even bother?

It's hard for me to imagine that the people making their demands on God actually believe He exists. If they did, perhaps they might be humbled.

Exactly!! and I really hate how they have hijacked
3 Nephi 27:29
29 Therefore, ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you; for he that asketh, receiveth; and unto him that knocketh, it shall be opened.

They are interpreting it as though God is saying if you ask me for it I'm going to give it to you.
I can understand them requesting a meeting with the prophet and possibly asking him to petition the Lord....but to me anyways it's very clear that for Kate Kelly her goal is just stirring up a s*** storm for some kind of persona gain, whether it's fame or to drum up business,since she is a civil rights attorney. And its about more power for women and overpowering men. You don't get that from her basic cause....but when you read interviews she's done its clear.
One recently that I read, that was a podcast done by some other women in the church who didn't happen to agree with her views, she went on to bash them online, insinuating that they were unable to think for themselves, and insinuated that anyone who saw things differently than her were basically inferior blind sheep.
She's also very pro-gay marriage. And has openly stated in an interview that she believes God approves of gay marriage.
Don't get me wrong I'm not here gay bashing, but I am pro traditional marriage, but believe all people deserve to be treated with respect.
I'll just be blunt about this. If someone really wants the church to be in their own image, they can go found their own. The bretheren are totally aware of this option, as am I as it is your constitutional right in the First Amendment. If you don't want to go off and found your own church, that tells me you don't have much faith in God backing your cause. Enough said.

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Benjamin_LK »

Thinker wrote:
jbalm wrote:So basically God wants us to do whatever is acceptable to society at large.
No! God=Love
Genuine love is loyalty to what is best, even if it is against what is acceptable to society at large.
(Are you just being sarcastic, Jbalm?)
Like Brigham Young, we are all just products of our times.
I don't consider myself just a product of our times. Yes, I'm influenced by many aspects, but I don't fall for lies, like the feminist & homosexual herd mentality. The notion that we are just products of our time is a lie like "determinism" or "no free will" nonsense. Happiness depends on progress. Progress depends on discovering and pursuing better ways than just the current times.
Everything is relative.
Please, clarify. What do you mean in applying that phrase to this context?
If people had so much faith that God and miracles backed their own cause, they would create their own church. Seeing as how someone as educated as Kate Kelly is not doing this, it looks like she's pulling a Zeezrom scam, like what Zeezrom tried to do to Amulek, funny thing is, just like Ms. Kelly, Zeezrom was also this nice crafty lawyer trying to bait God's annointed into destruction, I just hope Kate Kelly does what Zeezrom ultimately did, and start thinking about turning around, because messing with God isn't a good long-term business.

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Benjamin_LK »

sen6b wrote:No but he does want us to obey the laws of the land. At least the ones that don't go against our moral conscience.
He expects us to obey the laws unless they DEMAND that we break his commandments, which is an extreme case. Even if they are bad, work against them and work to have them changed, outright, rebellious disobedience is a last resort.

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Benjamin_LK »

jbalm wrote:So basically God wants us to do whatever is acceptable to society at large.

Like Brigham Young, we are all just products of our times.

Everything is relative.
He doesn't want us to drink that coffee (society accepts that)
He doesn't want us to drink that whiskey (society accepts that)
He wants me excommunicated because I fornicated with my fiancé/girlfriend before we were married (that's totally fine with the majority of society, a few nonmembers still are opposed to it)
He wants me excommunicated for cheating on my wife (not a serious crime with society at large, not even worthy of me going to prison)
He wants me unworthy for temple because I drink either booze or coffee (society doesn't view that as quite as serious offense)
The Primary message for 2014 is The Family: A Proclamation to the World, I know because my wife and are are serving as Primary Teachers right now. Oh my, all that heresy before the OW crowd! Not really though.

I could go on and on, but your thinking is focused on a really narrow aspect of the church's peculiarities. Why haven't we just dumped the WoW, we would be a lot less absurd without all the alcohol and coffee consumption taboos anyways? Why not just dump the law of chastity, I mean we're so odd for calling any of our members engaged in cohabitation sinners, right? Is it really of God, or is it not? It's time to start thinking about those things. However, what's also true is once we cave in to one commandment, we will be on a path to ditching many more. We don't have to be like the CoC, which BTW, is a perfect option for those OWs to join. The fact that they well, don't tells me that they're not really true believers in every sense of the word, they just want to try and manipulate people, just like the lie of Zeezrom was solely to bait Amulek into denying the existence of God, then try him as a heretic. If someone really believed in some God or miracles backing them, they can utilize their freedom of religion rights to go and found their own church.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by jbalm »

Benjamin_LK wrote:
jbalm wrote:So basically God wants us to do whatever is acceptable to society at large.

Like Brigham Young, we are all just products of our times.

Everything is relative.
He doesn't want us to drink that coffee (society accepts that)
He doesn't want us to drink that whiskey (society accepts that)
He wants me excommunicated because I fornicated with my fiancé/girlfriend before we were married (that's totally fine with the majority of society, a few nonmembers still are opposed to it)
He wants me excommunicated for cheating on my wife (not a serious crime with society at large, not even worthy of me going to prison)
He wants me unworthy for temple because I drink either booze or coffee (society doesn't view that as quite as serious offense)
The Primary message for 2014 is The Family: A Proclamation to the World, I know because my wife and are are serving as Primary Teachers right now. Oh my, all that heresy before the OW crowd! Not really though.

I could go on and on, but your thinking is focused on a really narrow aspect of the church's peculiarities. Why haven't we just dumped the WoW, we would be a lot less absurd without all the alcohol and coffee consumption taboos anyways? Why not just dump the law of chastity, I mean we're so odd for calling any of our members engaged in cohabitation sinners, right? Is it really of God, or is it not? It's time to start thinking about those things. However, what's also true is once we cave in to one commandment, we will be on a path to ditching many more. We don't have to be like the CoC, which BTW, is a perfect option for those OWs to join. The fact that they well, don't tells me that they're not really true believers in every sense of the word, they just want to try and manipulate people, just like the lie of Zeezrom was solely to bait Amulek into denying the existence of God, then try him as a heretic. If someone really believed in some God or miracles backing them, they can utilize their freedom of religion rights to go and found their own church.


If there was enough pressure to change those things, they would change.

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Benjamin_LK »

jbalm wrote:
Benjamin_LK wrote:
jbalm wrote:So basically God wants us to do whatever is acceptable to society at large.

Like Brigham Young, we are all just products of our times.

Everything is relative.
He doesn't want us to drink that coffee (society accepts that)
He doesn't want us to drink that whiskey (society accepts that)
He wants me excommunicated because I fornicated with my fiancé/girlfriend before we were married (that's totally fine with the majority of society, a few nonmembers still are opposed to it)
He wants me excommunicated for cheating on my wife (not a serious crime with society at large, not even worthy of me going to prison)
He wants me unworthy for temple because I drink either booze or coffee (society doesn't view that as quite as serious offense)
The Primary message for 2014 is The Family: A Proclamation to the World, I know because my wife and are are serving as Primary Teachers right now. Oh my, all that heresy before the OW crowd! Not really though.

I could go on and on, but your thinking is focused on a really narrow aspect of the church's peculiarities. Why haven't we just dumped the WoW, we would be a lot less absurd without all the alcohol and coffee consumption taboos anyways? Why not just dump the law of chastity, I mean we're so odd for calling any of our members engaged in cohabitation sinners, right? Is it really of God, or is it not? It's time to start thinking about those things. However, what's also true is once we cave in to one commandment, we will be on a path to ditching many more. We don't have to be like the CoC, which BTW, is a perfect option for those OWs to join. The fact that they well, don't tells me that they're not really true believers in every sense of the word, they just want to try and manipulate people, just like the lie of Zeezrom was solely to bait Amulek into denying the existence of God, then try him as a heretic. If someone really believed in some God or miracles backing them, they can utilize their freedom of religion rights to go and found their own church.


If there was enough pressure to change those things, they would change.
There is pressure on all those matters I mention in the form of the fact that people don't want to join the church because it involves being willing to change from the various points I just mentioned. If we changed it, perhaps that coffee drinker would be interested, or would he, when he can just go to whatever church never considered it wrong to drink in the first place?

If the church caves on the OW crowd, it will be subsequently demanded to cave on one issue, after another, after another.

As for the OW crowd, it's a totally different issue, it's one of figuring that men and women are identical just because we can try and impersonate one another. That's not the case, there are two distinct genders, and both are meant to respect and collaborate in the Lord's Church. That doesn't mean I have to see a woman as no different than myself to respect her, I see the differences between my wife and myself, or my sisters and myself, and my mother and myself, and recognize that this gender difference and diversity as a productive, and positive, even sacred, aspect worth recognizing.

User avatar
LDSguy
captain of 100
Posts: 625
Location: The Republic of Texas

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by LDSguy »

For whomever in here said they thought they heard that Kate Kelly's bishop and stake president were behind her:
Ms. Kelly received an email on June 8 from her local bishop in Virginia informing her that she faces “disfellowshipment or excommunication, on the grounds of apostasy,” and calling her to a disciplinary council hearing on June 22.

Ms. Kelly’s stake president had warned her in a letter in May that if she did not shut down the Ordain Women website, dissociate herself from it and repent, she faced excommunication for “openly, repeatedly and deliberately acting in public opposition to the church and its leaders after having been counseled not to do so.”

The letter said, “you are not required to change your thinking or the questions you may have in your own mind,” but that she must keep her questions private and resolve them by talking to her bishop.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/tw ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Hyrcanus
captain of 100
Posts: 716

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Hyrcanus »

LDSguy wrote:For whomever in here said they thought they heard that Kate Kelly's bishop and stake president were behind her:
Ms. Kelly received an email on June 8 from her local bishop in Virginia informing her that she faces “disfellowshipment or excommunication, on the grounds of apostasy,” and calling her to a disciplinary council hearing on June 22.

Ms. Kelly’s stake president had warned her in a letter in May that if she did not shut down the Ordain Women website, dissociate herself from it and repent, she faced excommunication for “openly, repeatedly and deliberately acting in public opposition to the church and its leaders after having been counseled not to do so.”

The letter said, “you are not required to change your thinking or the questions you may have in your own mind,” but that she must keep her questions private and resolve them by talking to her bishop.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/tw ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No surprise here, the LDS Church has a clear history of how it handles those that dissent. She clearly is interested in playing to the media for sympathy, but this is exactly what she should (and likely did) have been expecting.

RaVaN
captain of 100
Posts: 657

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by RaVaN »

I am not LDS, but things like this just baffles me. To me, this group is blatantly attack the LDS church. It's obviously they don't agree with the standard of truth held by the LDS church, so why remain in something that you feel is oppressing you? The answer is pretty simple, it is an attack to destroy an institution. It has nothing to do with faith or belief but everything to do with them being oppressors of another's faith.

Anyhow, pretty standard for a wicked society really. It makes me think of the book of Jasher and the wickedness of Sodom.
"12 And Eliezer went to Sodom, and he met a man of Sodom fighting with a stranger, and the man of Sodom stripped the poor man of all his clothes and went away.



13 And this poor man cried to Eliezer and supplicated his favor on account of what the man of Sodom had done to him.



14 And he said to him, Why dost thou act thus to the poor man who came to thy land?



15 And the man of Sodom answered Eliezer, saying, Is this man thy brother, or have the people of Sodom made thee a judge this day, that thou speakest about this man?



16 And Eliezer strove with the man of Sodom on account of the poor man, and when Eliezer approached to recover the poor man's clothes from the man of Sodom, he hastened and with a stone smote Eliezer in the forehead.



17 And the blood flowed copiously from Eliezer's forehead, and when the man saw the blood he caught hold of Eliezer, saying, Give me my hire for having rid thee of this bad blood that was in thy forehead, for such is the custom and the law in our land.



18 And Eliezer said to him, Thou hast wounded me and requirest me to pay thee thy hire; and Eliezer would not hearken to the words of the man of Sodom.



19 And the man laid hold of Eliezer and brought him to Shakra the judge of Sodom for judgment.



20 And the man spoke to the judge, saying, I beseech thee my lord, thus has this man done, for I smote him with a stone that the blood flowed from his forehead, and he is unwilling to give me my hire.



21 And the judge said to Eliezer, This man speaketh truth to thee, give him his hire, for this is the custom in our land; and Eliezer heard the words of the judge, and he lifted up a stone and smote the judge, and the stone struck on his forehead, and the blood flowed copiously from the forehead of the judge, and Eliezer said, If this then is the custom in your land give thou unto this man what I should have given him, for this has been thy decision, thou didst decree it.



22 And Eliezer left the man of Sodom with the judge, and he went away."(Book ofJasher 19:12-22)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/19.htm

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by jbalm »

RaVaN wrote:I am not LDS, but things like this just baffles me. To me, this group is blatantly attack the LDS church. It's obviously they don't agree with the standard of truth held by the LDS church, so why remain in something that you feel is oppressing you? The answer is pretty simple, it is an attack to destroy an institution. It has nothing to do with faith or belief but everything to do with them being oppressors of another's faith.

Anyhow, pretty standard for a wicked society really. It makes me think of the book of Jasher and the wickedness of Sodom.
"12 And Eliezer went to Sodom, and he met a man of Sodom fighting with a stranger, and the man of Sodom stripped the poor man of all his clothes and went away.



13 And this poor man cried to Eliezer and supplicated his favor on account of what the man of Sodom had done to him.



14 And he said to him, Why dost thou act thus to the poor man who came to thy land?



15 And the man of Sodom answered Eliezer, saying, Is this man thy brother, or have the people of Sodom made thee a judge this day, that thou speakest about this man?



16 And Eliezer strove with the man of Sodom on account of the poor man, and when Eliezer approached to recover the poor man's clothes from the man of Sodom, he hastened and with a stone smote Eliezer in the forehead.



17 And the blood flowed copiously from Eliezer's forehead, and when the man saw the blood he caught hold of Eliezer, saying, Give me my hire for having rid thee of this bad blood that was in thy forehead, for such is the custom and the law in our land.



18 And Eliezer said to him, Thou hast wounded me and requirest me to pay thee thy hire; and Eliezer would not hearken to the words of the man of Sodom.



19 And the man laid hold of Eliezer and brought him to Shakra the judge of Sodom for judgment.



20 And the man spoke to the judge, saying, I beseech thee my lord, thus has this man done, for I smote him with a stone that the blood flowed from his forehead, and he is unwilling to give me my hire.



21 And the judge said to Eliezer, This man speaketh truth to thee, give him his hire, for this is the custom in our land; and Eliezer heard the words of the judge, and he lifted up a stone and smote the judge, and the stone struck on his forehead, and the blood flowed copiously from the forehead of the judge, and Eliezer said, If this then is the custom in your land give thou unto this man what I should have given him, for this has been thy decision, thou didst decree it.



22 And Eliezer left the man of Sodom with the judge, and he went away."(Book ofJasher 19:12-22)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/19.htm
Have you ever been LDS?

If not, you won't understand.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Thinker »

RaVaN wrote:I am not LDS, but things like this just baffles me. To me, this group is blatantly attack the LDS church. It's obviously they don't agree with the standard of truth held by the LDS church, so why remain in something that you feel is oppressing you? The answer is pretty simple, it is an attack to destroy an institution. It has nothing to do with faith or belief but everything to do with them being oppressors of another's faith.
RaVan,
It may seem like I'm arguing all sides, but really just trying to consider what's best in the big picture, by acknowleding multiple perspectives.
I continue to attend church, even though I strongly disagree with some practices (mostly financial corruption & cognitive distortions).
So, it is possible & maybe even best to continue to be part of an organization that you don't agree with 100%.
IE: You may not support many laws or acts of congress, executive or judiciary branches, but you still consider yourself American (or whatever citizenship you have), right?

Of course, religion is a little more voluntary. Still, when you're brought up in a church and you get to value good things of it, you want to stand up for the goodness and try to eliminate the bad.
Again, I disagree with this woman trying to force many to cater to her ideas. I consider what is best for the whole...(which is often done on faith - trial & error).

Jbalm, (continuing with the above thoughts...)
It's best that tithes go to those in need, (Deut 14:28-29) & since the church hides & mispends money, I don't share money with them, but directly to those in need.
It's best that me and my kids learn to think correctly (not embrace the many cognitive distortions taught by the church), so we can think better & live better ("As a man thinketh in his heart so is he").

It's best that children have a mother & father & that homosexual fetishes (sexual substitutes) are not glorified (US CDC reveals high stats of homosexuals of STDs, HIV, mental illness), so it is best that the church continues to recognize & support only marriage between a man and a woman, while loving (but not enabling) those struggling with homosexual thoughts, feelings & actions.

It's best that children are raised by a parent (usually the mom since only she can nurse & she's usually better at multi-tasking/nurturing)... so supporting the feminist push to priortize women's "needs"/wants over children (in womb & outside of womb) is not best. The feminist movement tends to hurt children through KILLING them (abortion - even when children/developing humans can FEEL it) and by pawning their children off on strangers (day cares).

Women already have priesthood power. It's just called something else- the power to LOVE- which is God's power bound in heaven & earth.

User avatar
Matthew.B
captain of 100
Posts: 877
Location: Syracuse, New York

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Matthew.B »

LDSguy wrote:
jbalm wrote:The church has changed doctrines due to outside pressure before. Why not again?
"The church" NEVER changes doctrine. It's not their doctrine to change. It belongs to The Lord and it is only His right to change it (which he never would). The blacks not having the priesthood for some time (which I assume you are referring to here) was NOT doctrine, it was a policy.
Policies sometimes change due to societal pressure (most notably polygamy). There's always accompanying doctrinal changes to justify the policy change. Statements that were seen as prophetic before the change (such as statements from Church Presidents that polygamy would not be taken from the Earth or the Church, or that blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until after Christ's Second Coming) are re-casted to be "men speaking as men". Scriptural exegesis is abandoned or altered.

"Unofficial" church doctrine--things that Church officials claim to be true based on scriptural exegesis--changes to reflect and justify changes in policy. It also changes to reflect societal trends and popular opinion, and sometimes the ordinances change based on those trends as well.

RaVaN
captain of 100
Posts: 657

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by RaVaN »

@jbalm

I find that to be false logic. The argument is pretty simple. These are the same attacks that you see throughout society right now. You don't have to be LDS to see the same pattern of oppression. This is without even getting into the religious aspect of this. The LDS church categorically states if you do Y then they will do X. You can't play a victim about it when it occurs. When you join the LDS church you enter into a contract with it. When you break that contract there are specific things that occur. You can't claim foul when those things occur because it's pretty implicitly implies...do thus or thus will happen. These are people that are actively breaking that contract. They have been told "no" by an authority they have a contract with that they gave their allegiance to. I think the LDS church is pretty crystal clear what is acceptable and what isn't for just about everything. Once you have been told no, and you continue to actively work against that no...it's attacking...Using aggressive force to illicit change.

Anyhow, this is why there is a big difference between the Gospel of Christ and the LDS church.

keep the faith
captain of 100
Posts: 798

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by keep the faith »

RaVaN wrote:I am not LDS, but things like this just baffles me. To me, this group is blatantly attack the LDS church. It's obviously they don't agree with the standard of truth held by the LDS church, so why remain in something that you feel is oppressing you? The answer is pretty simple, it is an attack to destroy an institution. It has nothing to do with faith or belief but everything to do with them being oppressors of another's faith.

Anyhow, pretty standard for a wicked society really. It makes me think of the book of Jasher and the wickedness of Sodom.
"12 And Eliezer went to Sodom, and he met a man of Sodom fighting with a stranger, and the man of Sodom stripped the poor man of all his clothes and went away.



13 And this poor man cried to Eliezer and supplicated his favor on account of what the man of Sodom had done to him.



14 And he said to him, Why dost thou act thus to the poor man who came to thy land?



15 And the man of Sodom answered Eliezer, saying, Is this man thy brother, or have the people of Sodom made thee a judge this day, that thou speakest about this man?



16 And Eliezer strove with the man of Sodom on account of the poor man, and when Eliezer approached to recover the poor man's clothes from the man of Sodom, he hastened and with a stone smote Eliezer in the forehead.



17 And the blood flowed copiously from Eliezer's forehead, and when the man saw the blood he caught hold of Eliezer, saying, Give me my hire for having rid thee of this bad blood that was in thy forehead, for such is the custom and the law in our land.



18 And Eliezer said to him, Thou hast wounded me and requirest me to pay thee thy hire; and Eliezer would not hearken to the words of the man of Sodom.



19 And the man laid hold of Eliezer and brought him to Shakra the judge of Sodom for judgment.



20 And the man spoke to the judge, saying, I beseech thee my lord, thus has this man done, for I smote him with a stone that the blood flowed from his forehead, and he is unwilling to give me my hire.



21 And the judge said to Eliezer, This man speaketh truth to thee, give him his hire, for this is the custom in our land; and Eliezer heard the words of the judge, and he lifted up a stone and smote the judge, and the stone struck on his forehead, and the blood flowed copiously from the forehead of the judge, and Eliezer said, If this then is the custom in your land give thou unto this man what I should have given him, for this has been thy decision, thou didst decree it.



22 And Eliezer left the man of Sodom with the judge, and he went away."(Book ofJasher 19:12-22)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/19.htm

You nailed it RaVan. These folks are just interested in pushing their own agenda's and don't care one whit about the church or its leadership. They want the church to bend to THEIR own agenda's and if it doesn't there will be hell to pay. They are just a bunch of spoiled brats demanding to have the church change its doctrines because they personally think it should. They are seeking to become oppressors of my faith and thousands of other committed LDS who respect the current doctrines and principles taught in the church. It is not within their "rights" to publicly demand the church do as they would suppose it should. The church has every right to bring disciplinary action against them for their prideful rants against what the church believes to be right and true. If they had any integrity they would resign their memberships and join or start other organizations or church's that fits their own personal agenda's.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by jbalm »

RaVaN wrote:@jbalm

I find that to be false logic. The argument is pretty simple. These are the same attacks that you see throughout society right now. You don't have to be LDS to see the same pattern of oppression. This is without even getting into the religious aspect of this. The LDS church categorically states if you do Y then they will do X. You can't play a victim about it when it occurs. When you join the LDS church you enter into a contract with it. When you break that contract there are specific things that occur. You can't claim foul when those things occur because it's pretty implicitly implies...do thus or thus will happen. These are people that are actively breaking that contract. They have been told "no" by an authority they have a contract with that they gave their allegiance to. I think the LDS church is pretty crystal clear what is acceptable and what isn't for just about everything. Once you have been told no, and you continue to actively work against that no...it's attacking...Using aggressive force to illicit change.

Anyhow, this is why there is a big difference between the Gospel of Christ and the LDS church.
First of all, I have no idea which post you're referring to. So I can't respond to your comment about what you deem to be false logic, nor do I know who is being accused of playing the victim.

Second, the church's rules regarding discipline are anything but clearly delineated. So much stuff is left to "the spirit" that the average person has no idea what consequences the church will impose for certain behavior. Some adulterers get exed, some don't. Some molesters get exed, some don't. Some bloggers/writers who are critical of the church get exed, some don't. The Ordain Women person is getting exed, but the guy who sued Monson in England is not. They ex people for writing uncomfortable bits of church history, then they put out the "Race and the Priesthood" essay which is more critical of past prophets than the September Six were or the current group that is in the cross-hairs is. For Pete's sake, they exed a guy for opposing the priesthood ban and then did away with the ban just a few months later. Helmut Huebner got exed for opposing the Nazis, only to have the exing undone posthumously. I could go on and on.

Frankly, the church is the most inconsistent administrator of discipline that I've ever seen. It's all based on fiat, pretty much.

So, your statement that "The LDS church categorically states if you do Y then they will do X" is just plain incorrect. The only rule that seems to apply is "do what we say now, regardless of what we, or anyone else, said in the past or may say in the future."

Third, the contract stuff is pure nonsense, for several reasons. First, I was eight when I was baptized. Minors can't make contracts. Hell, I still believed in Santa when I was eight. I'm not unique here. Second...well...let's not even get into arguments about lack/failure of consideration. Suffice it to say, churches are pretty much exempt from the normal rules governing contracts when it comes to their congregations. A secular organization could not legally engage in the same practices as a church does when getting people to enter into these so called "contracts." Those would all be void, or voidable. People might even end up in jail.

Lastly, your contract analogy fails because the terms of the so-called contracts are egregiously unclear, which circles back to my comments regarding the inconsistency in the application of discipline.

RaVaN
captain of 100
Posts: 657

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by RaVaN »

"Have you ever been LDS?

If not, you won't understand."(jbalm)

That is what I was referring to as false logic.


". The only rule that seems to apply is "do what we say now, regardless of what we, or anyone else, said in the past or may say in the future."(jbalm)

Exactly. The LDS leadership is what dictates. This has been the standard of the LDS church always. You either accept that or you are not a full faith member.

You say you were a minor when baptized and that minors can't enter into contracts, except that is just false. In the legal sense of the word it is true, but a contract is an agreement between two groups or more groups. You agreed, 8 years old or not to be baptized. You entered into that contract. Whether or not it was in full faith is irrelevant. You renewed that contract every time you have elected to stay within that governing body and partook of it's works. Once again, it was either in full faith or it wasn't...but the contractual agreement was still there and is still there every time you continue in being a part of that church. Just as well you can terminate that contract any time you choose just as they can terminate that contract whenever they choose...that's part of the contract.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by jbalm »

RaVaN wrote:"Have you ever been LDS?

If not, you won't understand."(jbalm)

That is what I was referring to as false logic.


". The only rule that seems to apply is "do what we say now, regardless of what we, or anyone else, said in the past or may say in the future."(jbalm)

Exactly. The LDS leadership is what dictates. This has been the standard of the LDS church always. You either accept that or you are not a full faith member.

You say you were a minor when baptized and that minors can't enter into contracts, except that is just false. In the legal sense of the word it is true, but a contract is an agreement between two groups or more groups. You agreed, 8 years old or not to be baptized. You entered into that contract. Whether or not it was in full faith is irrelevant. You renewed that contract every time you have elected to stay within that governing body and partook of it's works. Once again, it was either in full faith or it wasn't...but the contractual agreement was still there and is still there every time you continue in being a part of that church. Just as well you can terminate that contract any time you choose just as they can terminate that contract whenever they choose...that's part of the contract.
Okay, I understand where you are coming from a little better.

When I said if you haven't been LDS, you wouldn't understand, that was in reply to your question (paraphrased) as to why someone would stay in the church if they felt it was oppressive.

Because, unless you have been conditioned, since you were a child, to believe that if you leave the church, not only are you screwed for eternity, but your whole family is screwed for eternity, then you probably won't understand why it is difficult to just pack up and leave.

That conditioning, particularly about ruining your family for eternity, results in families putting huge amounts of pressure on members who want to leave the church. For people who rely on the church as their social support, that is just one more bit of pressure involved in the decision to leave the church, because all to often a member who leaves the church will lose all their friends who are church members.

Finally, if you live in certain areas, like Utah, or work for a church member, leaving the church could possibly mean losing your livelihood.

That's a lot of pressure for people to remain in the church, regardless of whether they believe in it or not, and regardless of any feelings of oppression.

That is why people agitate to change the church (which actually happens from time to time) rather than just abandoning it.

From someone looking in from the outside, all the stuff I just said might sound ridiculous. Most people will think "if you don't like it, leave...screw it." But it is more difficult for people who come from families that have been Mormon for generations.

I certainly wasn't trying to be condescending toward you.

I still disagree with you regarding the contract thing. A contract is only a contract when all parties involved are fully informed and free from any undue influence. (How many 8-year-olds are going to want their mothers to cry because they say they don't want to be baptized? For that matter, how many 40-year-olds are going to want their mothers to cry because they said they don't believe in the church?). In my opinion, those requirements are more than just legalistic, they are essential from a moral standpoint. But that's just my opinion.

RaVaN
captain of 100
Posts: 657

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by RaVaN »

That conditioning or variants of it isn't only found within the LDS church. The same is found in many denominations. I know exactly what it is like and that is just an excuse not to do that which you feel is right. That is why I call it false logic, because you assume that conditioning is special to the LDS church culture, which it isn't. It's pretty much human nature to create that form of conditioning because it generates stability and it is also human nature to think that their situation is unique to their culture/social grouping.

It really is as simple of "if you don't like it, leave it" if you feel that strongly about it. I know this because I have done this. There will be things to deal with, but I prefer living by principle rather than in hypocrisy. Life is too short to spend wasted following that which you don't believe in.

Anyhow, I think it's a pretty weak argument. I understand the argument, it's just a weak one since I have dealt with similar conditioning and still am in some ways. I still get people looking down at me around here/refusal to associate with me because of that decision...which is just crazy to me. The accusations are pretty amusing at times though. "What do I tell my kids when they ask why you don't attend?"(relative) or "Do you think that because you don't attend church is why your siblings don't attend?" or "Well you don't even believe in God...or at least the God of the Book of Mormon." All in the nice passive aggressive, "we really care for you" voice. Mind you, my parent's church are every bit as strongly believing in the "one true church" mentality.

On the topic of contracts though, any contract entered into will never be free of undue influence and you will not be fully informed just by human nature in general. So I look at that as quibbling and an unattainable ideal. I was baptized at a very early age as well, I don't actually remember what age I was but it was before I was 10. I was accepted as a member of that church at the time. When I turned 16, my father and I came to literal blows over my decision to quit attending the church local he attended for the local I wanted to attend to, mainly because of their rejection and beliefs of certain doctrines. I attended the local of my choice because I was steadfast in my belief in following where God told me to go...it's pretty funny though my big rebellion as a teenager was in choice of church local(not even different denominations...just a different branch of the same church).

Anyhow, this is why it baffles me because I have been through similar things and the right thing to do is the right thing to do. And don't worry about me thinking you are being "condescending" or whatever, generally I'll just reply back if I think it's important...not to mention I come off as condescending and patronizing more times than not myself in voicing my thoughts.

Btw, I do enjoy rambling at you about this stuff regardless.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by jbalm »

I must admit then, my original comment was made somewhat out of ignorance. I haven't been a part of any other religion. I assume that JWs and some of the fundamentalist sects would exert similar pressures on those who depart as the LDS church does. I also assume that more mainline churches like catholics, methodists, and baptists do not do that sort of thing. But I don't really know.

Regarding whether it is preferable to bail or not, it's different strokes for different folks. At this point in time, I think it's better to deal with some personal discomfort than to send my family members into a tailspin.

Besides, it isn't like I've gone all atheist or anything. I believe strongly in a loving God and believe in striving to live in as Christ-like a manner as I can. So I can still get something from church attendance.

And I always leave open the possibility that I could change my mind about my beliefs--it's happened before. I allow myself to be influenced by the evidence that comes to light. Some would call that a weakness, others would not.

RaVaN
captain of 100
Posts: 657

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by RaVaN »

It really depends on the church people in whatever denomination. I tend to consider Lutherans and Methodists to be pretty laid back, except my mom was a Methodist and was ostracized by her family for marrying a "Mormon". Various groups of Baptists are pretty crazy as well, example being a Baptist family up here when they found out my cousin believed in the book of Mormon forbade their daughter to date him, culminating in locking her up in the house to keep him from her with their pastor preaching at her in the room. Catholics can be just as bad. I knew one devout catholic who had his marriage annulled when his wife said she was an atheist and did everything he could to keep her from her kid.

But it isn't a religious thing. Look at the education system in many states. If you don't toe the Union line you get fired. I am reasonable sure my mom was forced to resign because she was perceived as a conservation and refused to stuff envelopes for Obama. People in general are raised not to think for themselves, but rather to conform to the societal mores and taboos and troublemakers(those that don't agree with that society) tend to get outcast/mistreated. Basically, everyone has these cultural pressures/conditioning to one degree or another.

In my case of course, I am lucky enough to live in America where we have a choice. Try living in some middle eastern country where you can get a death sentence for converting away from Islam...that takes true courage in my opinion. Here, we have it easy for now and why it is so important to understand that a minority group in a religious institution trying to force the majority to conform to an outside societal standard...is just wrong and wicked in my view. This IS what that group is doing. It's the part of the same mentality that is actively removing God from every aspect of our society and our ability to worship as we see fit all in the name of social justice...which isn't justice but conformity to a social norm...all just the same crap and like I posted from the Book of Jasher...it's that same society that was back then.

User avatar
jbalm
The Third Comforter
Posts: 5348

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by jbalm »

RaVaN wrote:It really depends on the church people in whatever denomination. I tend to consider Lutherans and Methodists to be pretty laid back, except my mom was a Methodist and was ostracized by her family for marrying a "Mormon". Various groups of Baptists are pretty crazy as well, example being a Baptist family up here when they found out my cousin believed in the book of Mormon forbade their daughter to date him, culminating in locking her up in the house to keep him from her with their pastor preaching at her in the room. Catholics can be just as bad. I knew one devout catholic who had his marriage annulled when his wife said she was an atheist and did everything he could to keep her from her kid.

But it isn't a religious thing. Look at the education system in many states. If you don't toe the Union line you get fired. I am reasonable sure my mom was forced to resign because she was perceived as a conservation and refused to stuff envelopes for Obama. People in general are raised not to think for themselves, but rather to conform to the societal mores and taboos and troublemakers(those that don't agree with that society) tend to get outcast/mistreated. Basically, everyone has these cultural pressures/conditioning to one degree or another.

In my case of course, I am lucky enough to live in America where we have a choice. Try living in some middle eastern country where you can get a death sentence for converting away from Islam...that takes true courage in my opinion. Here, we have it easy for now and why it is so important to understand that a minority group in a religious institution trying to force the majority to conform to an outside societal standard...is just wrong and wicked in my view. This IS what that group is doing. It's the part of the same mentality that is actively removing God from every aspect of our society and our ability to worship as we see fit all in the name of social justice...which isn't justice but conformity to a social norm...all just the same crap and like I posted from the Book of Jasher...it's that same society that was back then.
I don't necessarily agree with the last part, but I respect your position.

I'm on the mobile now, so my ability to engage in the back and forth (which I have enjoyed, by the way) is somewhat hampered.

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Benjamin_LK »

RaVaN wrote:I am not LDS, but things like this just baffles me. To me, this group is blatantly attack the LDS church. It's obviously they don't agree with the standard of truth held by the LDS church, so why remain in something that you feel is oppressing you? The answer is pretty simple, it is an attack to destroy an institution. It has nothing to do with faith or belief but everything to do with them being oppressors of another's faith.

Anyhow, pretty standard for a wicked society really. It makes me think of the book of Jasher and the wickedness of Sodom.
"12 And Eliezer went to Sodom, and he met a man of Sodom fighting with a stranger, and the man of Sodom stripped the poor man of all his clothes and went away.



13 And this poor man cried to Eliezer and supplicated his favor on account of what the man of Sodom had done to him.



14 And he said to him, Why dost thou act thus to the poor man who came to thy land?



15 And the man of Sodom answered Eliezer, saying, Is this man thy brother, or have the people of Sodom made thee a judge this day, that thou speakest about this man?



16 And Eliezer strove with the man of Sodom on account of the poor man, and when Eliezer approached to recover the poor man's clothes from the man of Sodom, he hastened and with a stone smote Eliezer in the forehead.



17 And the blood flowed copiously from Eliezer's forehead, and when the man saw the blood he caught hold of Eliezer, saying, Give me my hire for having rid thee of this bad blood that was in thy forehead, for such is the custom and the law in our land.



18 And Eliezer said to him, Thou hast wounded me and requirest me to pay thee thy hire; and Eliezer would not hearken to the words of the man of Sodom.



19 And the man laid hold of Eliezer and brought him to Shakra the judge of Sodom for judgment.



20 And the man spoke to the judge, saying, I beseech thee my lord, thus has this man done, for I smote him with a stone that the blood flowed from his forehead, and he is unwilling to give me my hire.



21 And the judge said to Eliezer, This man speaketh truth to thee, give him his hire, for this is the custom in our land; and Eliezer heard the words of the judge, and he lifted up a stone and smote the judge, and the stone struck on his forehead, and the blood flowed copiously from the forehead of the judge, and Eliezer said, If this then is the custom in your land give thou unto this man what I should have given him, for this has been thy decision, thou didst decree it.



22 And Eliezer left the man of Sodom with the judge, and he went away."(Book ofJasher 19:12-22)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/19.htm
Kate Kelly reminds me a great deal of Zeezrom, as encountered by Amulek at Amonihah. Zeezrom tried to bait Amulek, rather maliciously, into denying God himself so that he could bait him into Blasphemy. Kate Kelly isn't desirous of being part of the church, and pushing a handcart, she's interested in mocking the people that pull the handcarts. Zeezrom also reminds me of Kate Kelly because I hope that Kate Kelly does something that Zeezrom does and at least gives the whole anti-church crusade a break, at most repents of it.

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Benjamin_LK »

RaVaN wrote:I am not LDS, but things like this just baffles me. To me, this group is blatantly attack the LDS church. It's obviously they don't agree with the standard of truth held by the LDS church, so why remain in something that you feel is oppressing you? The answer is pretty simple, it is an attack to destroy an institution. It has nothing to do with faith or belief but everything to do with them being oppressors of another's faith.

Anyhow, pretty standard for a wicked society really. It makes me think of the book of Jasher and the wickedness of Sodom.
"12 And Eliezer went to Sodom, and he met a man of Sodom fighting with a stranger, and the man of Sodom stripped the poor man of all his clothes and went away.



13 And this poor man cried to Eliezer and supplicated his favor on account of what the man of Sodom had done to him.



14 And he said to him, Why dost thou act thus to the poor man who came to thy land?



15 And the man of Sodom answered Eliezer, saying, Is this man thy brother, or have the people of Sodom made thee a judge this day, that thou speakest about this man?



16 And Eliezer strove with the man of Sodom on account of the poor man, and when Eliezer approached to recover the poor man's clothes from the man of Sodom, he hastened and with a stone smote Eliezer in the forehead.



17 And the blood flowed copiously from Eliezer's forehead, and when the man saw the blood he caught hold of Eliezer, saying, Give me my hire for having rid thee of this bad blood that was in thy forehead, for such is the custom and the law in our land.



18 And Eliezer said to him, Thou hast wounded me and requirest me to pay thee thy hire; and Eliezer would not hearken to the words of the man of Sodom.



19 And the man laid hold of Eliezer and brought him to Shakra the judge of Sodom for judgment.



20 And the man spoke to the judge, saying, I beseech thee my lord, thus has this man done, for I smote him with a stone that the blood flowed from his forehead, and he is unwilling to give me my hire.



21 And the judge said to Eliezer, This man speaketh truth to thee, give him his hire, for this is the custom in our land; and Eliezer heard the words of the judge, and he lifted up a stone and smote the judge, and the stone struck on his forehead, and the blood flowed copiously from the forehead of the judge, and Eliezer said, If this then is the custom in your land give thou unto this man what I should have given him, for this has been thy decision, thou didst decree it.



22 And Eliezer left the man of Sodom with the judge, and he went away."(Book ofJasher 19:12-22)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/19.htm
In all honesty, the option of joining over with the Community of Christ (offshoot church which has had women priesthood holders) has been there for a long time. If they don't want to do that, well, they can excercise their constitutional right to establish their own church.

Sunshine2014
captain of 10
Posts: 23

Re: Open Letter to Kate Kelly, Ordain Women...

Post by Sunshine2014 »

Hello, I'm new and just wanted to add my two cents regarding "Ordain Women". I was born in the church, lost my faith in the church, experienced some hard times that humbled me incredibly, and now am trying to get myself acquainted again with it. What I do believe for sure is that God will help me get on the right path if I am honest and persistent with my asking. I think this belief is completely absent from Ordain Women I don't want to be unfair to Kate Kelly, BUT it is blatantly obvious to me that she is terribly misguided at best. She should be taking this concern to God. She should go to God honestly, without an agenda to help her reconcile any problems she has with a church that she views as true. Because her inclination to handle her questions involve creating a movement, involving herself with the intoxicating world of activism, promoting a sort of group-think that fosters it's own religion through loyalty to its cause, and most importantly pushing an AGENDA (not simply asking a question) I have to believe that her motives are not genuine, and I haven't decided if she is consciously aware of her dis-ingenuousness. The point is, I believe she feeds off being an activist. She feeds off being the pioneer of a movement. In a recent interview discussing her excommunication she says "now I know how Joseph Smith felt." The religion she is loyal to is the religion of politically correct "social justice" because she can use it to get the power/self-esteem boost etc. all the while fooling herself to believe her motives are pure. And what a better way to sell her cause in than under the guise of "equality." Which is used all the time to hide the truth! She isn't open to true revelation from a God who is equal because she has expressed that she will not stop until women are ordained. I believe God doesn't like ultimatums, but contrary to how Kate sells this ordeal He loves and welcomes HONEST questions. And if I am to accept the premise that the LDS church is the true church, which she claims she wholeheartedly believes, it is perfectly reasonable to me that God, who knows Kate's heart, has enlightened the GAs to not entertain her antics because she is not open to truth and only wants what she wants. It is mind boggling to me that she doesn't consider this possibility and instead only sees discrimination. This leads me to believe that she is not genuine. I venture to say if women became ordained she would grab her megaphone and rally up her followers to get behind some other cause. Trying to work through the trials I have had in life, it has become crystal clear that I... do... not... know... ANYTHING :). Rather, I can not make assumptions about leaders, religious institutions, doctrine or even navigate how I should live my life without being agenda-less, and submitting my will to do what God wants no matter how I "feel." It is sad to me that in the name of God she is trying to fulfill herself with things not of God (not to mention hurting the lds message and leading others astray). She is in for incredibly painful road ahead.

Post Reply