Her conduct seems unbecoming of a member.

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

I don't know of her.

frankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know of her.


She's the founder of ordainwomen dot org.

Ahh, I get it.

So, why would we wish church sanctions on her if she is doing something like this?

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahh, I get it.
>
> So, why would we wish church sanctions on her if
> she is doing something like this?


I don't think anyone's wishing church sanctions on her, to be honest. I suspect that she will be accused of "apostasy," though, and told to repent of daring to believe that mere "sisters" could possibly be religious leaders.

It's all about the Old White Dudes in Charge (OWDiC) keeping their hegemony.

Not sure who she is. The Idaho politician?

I looked the politician up on Wikipedia and it didn't mention whether she was a Mormon or not.

If she goes to church and tries to convince individual members of her cause, they will try to discipline her.

If she remains political through a website, they may or may not discipline her.

My guess, they won't touch her if she has any public presence already. My experience is that LDSinc is big on intimidating members who appear as nobodies and have no press connection. They might instead intimidate "average" members who bring up the issue in the wards elsewhere.

To risk disciplining her would risk a media storm that only brings more attention. In my case, they stopped the disciplinary court once it got media attention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2013 04:14PM by Jesus Smith.

"My guess, they won't touch her if she has any public presence already."
Agreed!

"To risk disciplining her would risk a media storm that only brings more attention."
Exactly!

Plus, she keeps saying she just wants TSCC to 'prayerfully consider' whether it's time for this to happen and cites GBH's quote when he talked about how there was 'no agitation for' women having the priesthood.

In reality though, I don't think it's gonna change because the percentages show that a lot of women in TSCC actually don't like this movement, or are against, and others are just apathetic to it.

Whatever - wouldn't change my view on TSCC either way, but I despise those women (and there are a lot) who are totally against these women pushing this ordain women movement.

It won't change exmo's, but changing the church by member action will change the church members' view of the leaders.

They will begin to question it -- if the LDS church were actually run by revelation, given to inspired prophets that have dedicated their long lives to humble devotion to the Lord, then one would expect them to be very in-tune with God’s will. The members will wonder: Mistakes will be made, but the Lord would let them know before the common member, would he not?

In fact, the doctrine is just that, as stated by W. Woodruff in the OD-1 of the D&C: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray.”

However, the LDS church has backpedaled due to peer and member pressures. They have on polygamy, on the blacks, on the gays (no longer a sin to have attraction just to act), on women praying at conference and more.

The infallibility claim of the prophet could be the undoing of the LDS church’s revelation claims when gay marriage is upheld as celestial doctrine and women are ordained. At that point, I imagine members will recognize they have the power, not the apostles, not first presidency or others.

If members ever do realize the power they have and exercise it, it will be a tipping point. They will find that with that power comes the demise of their delusion that God is in control of the church through the prophet. At that tipping point, more of them will want change because they will realize they guide the church. And so goes the feedback. Members will begin seeing that the LDS church is a glass jaw bully.

"It won't change exmo's, but changing the church by member action will change the church members' view of the leaders."

I think so too.

"The infallibility claim of the prophet could be the undoing of the LDS church’s revelation claims when gay marriage is upheld as celestial doctrine and women are ordained. At that point, I imagine members will recognize they have the power, not the apostles, not first presidency or others."

Yes, right. Rather than top down, it's bottom up, and that realization by the masses could do TSCC a lot of damage.

"If members ever do realize the power they have and exercise it, it will be a tipping point. They will find that with that power comes the demise of their delusion that God is in control of the church through the prophet."

Yes, and then what makes it any different than any other church...? There goes their 'one true church' claim. That would be a real problem for TSCC.

It all depends on how good looking she is.

...oh, right you are, my brother!

...this sounds like one of the episodes of "Big Love", where Barb is discovered as a plyg wife, and also is championing female Priesthood....THEN the goons roll out the big guns and ex' her........

Art imitates life.

I agree, except that I'm a sister! :)

...sorry, I'm new to all this; though I tried to use it in a gender neutral manner....did it work?



No...

lol it's ok

Not long. Her and her compadres should be getting letters sometime soon.

I agree not long.

She was just on Radio West here in Salt Lake City for an extended interview advocating for ordination.

See here to stream the podcast: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/mormon-women-and-priesthood

Especially if they intend on continuing to have rallys and conferences and other promotions, her goose is cooked. Its interesting that, though she seems like a very smart woman, she doesn't get that her advocacy will never fly. Just being nice, diminutive and "sustaining" ain't gonna cut it IMO.


From the website (ordainwomen.org)

"Why is ordination necessary for women in the LDS Church?

. . . . Since leadership and positional authority in Mormonism is inextricably tied to priesthood ordination, it is clear that Mormon women must be ordained in order to be full and equal participants in their Church."

"In questioning Church policies, aren’t you questioning God?

No. In fact, the challenge to advocate for women’s ordination was articulated by former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley in a 1997 interview with reporter David Ransom. When Ransom asked if the policy on denying priesthood to women could be changed, much like it had for black men, President Hinckley responded, “Yes. But there’s no agitation for that.”




NECESSARY and MUST are almost guaranteed to generate action, but invoking GBH as instructing them to question the church is fatal for SURE.


Introduced on the site under the heading "Mormons Who Advocate for Women’s Ordination" is Caroline Kline who is described as completing coursework for a Ph.D. in religion with a focus on women’s studies in religion. Her areas of interest revolve around the intersections of Mormon and feminist theology and the study of contemporary Mormon feminist communities. She is the co-founder of the Mormon feminist blog, The Exponent.


Now I want hear from any one of you who think that there is any chance in HELL the "brethren" would give a competent and successful woman like Caroline the priesthood? ROTFLMAO!

Depending on the publicity surrounding this issue and the response of mainstream, TBM Mormons to this movement, I am on the fence about whether or not they will attempt to excommunicate her or not.

On the one hand, it would be a simple matter for the Corporation to ex her and deliver a "fatal" blow to the movement (sending a strong message to less vocal supporters that this kind of agitation is unacceptable).

However, it isn't September 1993 anymore. The Internet has made public figures of too many within the community (including Tom Phillips) to ex her without repercussions. The media would also shine an intense spotlight on it, for a host of reasons. I think the Corporation would prefer to avoid scrutiny if at all possible.

Therefore, they may simply make small concessions (like "allowing" women to pray at GC, for example) without addressing the more substantial requests of the Mormon feminists (ordaining women and/or concessions like those requested in this document: http://whatwomenknow.org/all_are_alike/ ).

As for what orthodox, TBM Mormons think about--if my MIL is any indication, she supports it (but would not agitate for it). I am surprised at the readiness of orthodox Mormons to accept it (of course, I'm just getting anecdotal reactions from a small sample population). However, if they are any indication, then there is some degree of support for it even among TBM's. These women wouldn't react negatively if women weren't ordained anytime soon, but I think they would react with some disappointment if Kate Kelly were excommunicated over this issue. (see here for a poll by the Daily Herald about this issue: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/editorial/herald-poll-women-and-the-priesthood/article_11076cf4-94a9-11e2-aca1-001a4bcf887a.html ).

That leaves the Corporation with just a few options:

excommunicate her, and potentially suffer the consequences

discredit Kate Kelly and excommunicate her for something else (like ambiguous "inappropriate relations with someone other than her spouse" or something)--I think there is a precedent for this kind of thing (see Simon Southerton) and is much more likely if the Brethren feel threatened

defy the movement and possibly suffer some consequences

do nothing and probably nothing will happen as a result (safest route)

I don't see the Brethren doing anything unless they feel threatened, in which case it would be safer and easier to smear her and then excommunicate her or disfellowship her (which would have a similar effect to simply excommunicating her without all of the nasty fall out of excommunicating her for apostasy for her "faithful agitation".

I've exchanged emails with her before. I think she means very well, but this will not end well.

Issue a statement that the agitation was successful, a prayer given to ask Jesus, and a response that the answer was a no.

End of conversation, close down the website, we asked and were told no, so back to church on Sunday she goes.

I think there is more to it than that.

Perhaps agitating the quorum of the 12 paints a big target on her head.

I don't think they will excommunicate her. The church got badly burned in the Prop 8 fiasco when they got horrible publicity. If there is ANYTHING they hate it is bad publicity.

Kelly has been pretty careful in how she has couched this and not nearly as obnoxious and offensive I would be if I were in her shoes. The local leadership wouldn't touch her with a ten-foot pole without permission from the top, because they don't want to be responsible for bring on the firestorm of publicity it would bring. Put more crudely, they can't wipe their asses without permission.

As for the hierarchy, they know they are in BIG trouble with women. Young women are leaving in droves, and the last thing they want to do is speed the exodus along. They are actually trying very hard, it seems to me, to be gracious and respond to women's concerns.

I have been watching this develop for 40 years. I've been part of it in the past but I'm burned out. I find it delightful that the new generation of feminists are joining together with resolve to be very activist and to not take no for answer.

I don't listen much to what Mormon leaders say any more, but when I do I am starting to hear inclusive language. They lowered the missionary age for women, and while they didn't do parity, it was a big change. They have included women in new mission field Leadership Councils. They let women pray in conference. I think they will be very careful to avoid slapping these women down and that they will respond with some positive steps.

There will have to be some more funerals before they give women the priesthood, and they need to spend some time prepping the membership for the change, but I think within the next decade there will be some significant changes for women in the church, and eventually they will have the Big Revelation.

I have voiced this concern from the get-go.

It sounds to me like they are challenging the official doctrine of the LDS Church.

It seems clear to me that these women asking to be ordained do not understand their role as women in the LDS Church as co-partners.

Just a little thing in wording had me scratching my head.

Comments from Kate Kelly: from their request to the "Divine Father" -- for the prophet to "issue a new decree", she also talks about it being slow in coming as it has to come by "intervention from God"....

I don't know about others, but that is not the kind of language that I generally hear in the Mormon Church.

When I first read it I thought it that sounded a bit like a Catholic.

Women I know in the LDS Church understand their role: they wear the Garment of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood and wear the robes according to requirements to participate in the Aaronic Priesthood and for the Melchizedek Priesthood in the temple. It's clear they do hold the priesthood as anyone who has gone through the temple ordinance knows. They do not officiate except in one place in the temple ordinance for women.

I don't see this petition to be ordained as a reasonable request from a testimony bearing LDS woman. It seems to go against the first four questions in the Temple Recommend:

Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?


It is possible, in my view for a bishop and/or stake president have a problem with these women promoting the LDS Church ordain women to officiate as it is contrary to what they claim and teach.

Just me, but I don't see this ending well.

"do nothing and probably nothing will happen as a result (safest route)"

I agree with SuzieQ that I can't see how this ends well

It seems that doing nothing will inevitably fuel the movement, or at least legitimize GBH approved "agitation" as something that members are entitled to do without fear of repercussion. I would be very surprised if the cult would be willing to allow any legitimization of a very public group as the unavoidable result is that allowing independent thinking is opening a dangerous door.

If you look on the ordainwomen site there are a host of doctrinal stretches that justify the various positions. For example, "all are alike unto God" is relied on a a doctrinal axiom justifying the rebellion, there is an association made between the claimed commandments of god and "men's rhetoric", and the site casually threatens that "if we fail to ordain women and provide a more inclusive range of opportunities for women and girls in the LDS Church, a significant number will search elsewhere for a more equitable spiritual community, as many, particularly young and single women, already have."

By doing nothing the church will not be able to keep from unwittingly legitimizing:

> direct challenges to PH authority,
> boldly making direct doctrinal arguments to justify public positions,
> searching elsewhere, if necessary for fulfillment if you are unhappy,
> agitation

and, these are all ways of thinking that are common to how the next generation of informed, independent women will be drawn to.

They may, in fact, do nothing, but they are screwed either way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2013 07:03PM by rodolfo.

I suppose they want to keep their focus theological rather than overtly political, by emphasizing that doctrine (or interpretations of it) could and should change.

But it strikes me that if enough Mormon women supported this group, they could call for a good old-fashioned sex strike.

Peace Out!

If she gets ex'd before arias I'll be puzzled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2013 09:14PM by archytas.

She means well in her own way as a TBM. I cannot help but think she should just start her own club complete with "priestesshood" and just run with that.

Her Dehlin interview was annoying because she uses the voice inflection thing at the end of every other sentence. I felt like I listened to 40 minutes of her asking questions after she would make a statement. It is probably just me, but please speak with some conviction priesthood wanting lady.

Personally, I don't know why this is a big deal.

Somebody give her the priesthood already!

I can't because I lost the precious priesthood when I resigned my membership and lost all of my blessings via USPS First Class mail.

But somebody out there still has more power in his pinky than the pope does. Any priesthood holder out there who wants to give the priesthood to her? (you must still currently hold the holy priesthood. It won't work if you sent in your letter!) You needn't believe, just still hold it.

I left freely because I just didn't belong there. When someone is exed that is different. I am sure that it will take a long time for her to process this. Profanity probably not allowed here but you can catch my drift. I hate the Mo Church. How many people has it screwed up? There are no other forums as large as this one for other religions.