Controversial Topic: Which will cause more members to leave?

[BoiseBYU]

She related that her bishop saw her every week but he and the stake president waited until she left to have the proceedings.

This is the biggest deception, if not lie she is propogating at this point (beyond the claim that all they are demanding is that President Monson pray about their demands....errrr...requests ).

Yes, her bishop saw her every week. He even saw her in person in an interview on May 5, before she moved, where she was placed on informal probation and informed that excommunication was on the table if she didn't change her present course. Specific actions were laid out that she needed to take to demonstrate penitance and humility. This meeting was followed by a letter from the bishop dated May 22 that she received, once again, before she moved setting out the same things in writing and making it clear the consequences if she didn't make changes.

She didn't make the changes that were the terms of her informal probation. Instead, she moved to Utah for no apparent reason other than to avoid this bishop, and now she's claiming suprise and injustice that the bishop "waited" until she moved to convene the council.

If you had any question as to the motivation and/or integrity of the leaders of this movement, this series of events has laid it bare to be seen. What's even more egregious is that she's posted the actual letter on the OW website, so anyone with half a brain can see the timetable doesn't match up with her martyr's complex distortion of what's happened.

As for the other guy, I don't think his council is being convened for his pro-gay sentiments as he has intimated. I find it odd that he would go public with it, but not put out the letter as most going public seem to do. My best guess is that his council has less to do with anything he's said about gays and the church, and more to do with statements he makes on his website, like this one he posts in the "About Me" page:

I believe in many of the central, non-distinctive moral teachings within Mormonism (e.g., love, kindness, charity, forgiveness, faith, hope), but either have serious doubts about, or no longer believe many of the fundamental LDS church truth claims (e.g., anthropomorphic God, “one true church with exclusive authority,” that the current LDS church prophet receives privileged communications from God, that The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham are translations, polygamy, racist teachings in the Book of Mormon, that ordinances are required for salvation, proxy work for the dead).

I do not believe that anyone has any idea what God and/or the afterlife are really like (if these things, indeed, exist at all). And so, while I respect non-judgmental forms of religious belief, I believe that believers walk by hope/faith alone (not knowledge), and that non-believers are to be respected for their courage to disbelieve. I believe that when science and religion collide, science almost always wins and religion retreats, and that this historical fact should lead religious people to respect/embrace, and not fear/reject science and reason.

I don't see how you can make statements like those on your public webpage and then be shocked when the bishop wants to talk about it. Notice how he even tries to plant a seed in the reader's mind that disbelief is more noble, more courageous than faith. If you don't believe in prophets, the book of Mormon, ordinances, or the Church, there's no reason to continue to burden yourself with pretending to be covenant-bound.

Thank you. I am unware of local Church leaders ever taking action because someone has doubts or even unorthodox beliefs. Thank goodness too, given that there are many in our congregation at least who at once did not believe or had their serious doubts but now have come to feel the spirit and proclaim their conversion. What seems to tip the scales is to public advocate against the Church and the doctrines upon which it is founded, seeking to lead persons astray and this only after long term counseling and meeting with the local Church leaders. Website advocating that Joseph never got gold plates or that the Church must do it her way or be condemned is something different and after all avenues of counseling and persuasion have been exhausted--well it seems understandable what is happening....

[BoiseBYU]

John Dehlin said this: "Throughout my Mormon adulthood, I have discovered that the Judeo-Christian/Mormon God that was taught to me in seminary--the God that requested Isaac’s sacrifice of Abraham as a test, and cursed Job for sport; the God that would send his Son to die, instead of facing the suffering Himself; the God that sent an angel with a flaming sword to Joseph; the God that blamed the members for the failures of Zion’s camp; the God whose divinely-led church still finds a way to either oppose or remain behind the times on any significant civil rights or social justice movement; the God who, instead, directs His church to build a multi-billion dollar commercial shopping mall over channeling the widow’s mite to the poor. I struggle to believe in this type of God." -- 2012 Sunstone Symposium

Do members ever have questioins or doubts about Church policy and practices? Yes. At least I have. Do they ever discuss these questions/doubts among trusted close personal friends or church leaders? Yes. At least I have. Are they treated with compassion and love and acceptance when they talk about these things? My experience is yes. Do they create public forums for debate or organize rallies and protests, risking damage to other's people's faith and disrupting Church meetings? No, except fpr the people who have brought this attention on to themselves. Their actions speak for themselves.

[nuk13]

She related that her bishop saw her every week but he and the stake president waited until she left to have the proceedings.

This is the biggest deception, if not lie she is propogating at this point (beyond the claim that all they are demanding is that President Monson pray about their demands....errrr...requests ).

Yes, her bishop saw her every week. He even saw her in person in an interview on May 5, before she moved, where she was placed on informal probation and informed that excommunication was on the table if she didn't change her present course. Specific actions were laid out that she needed to take to demonstrate penitance and humility. This meeting was followed by a letter from the bishop dated May 22 that she received, once again, before she moved setting out the same things in writing and making it clear the consequences if she didn't make changes.

I do not recall her mentioning anything about this May 5 interview or the May 22 letter.

[snoscythe]

I do not recall her mentioning anything about this May 5 interview or the May 22 letter.

She doesn't "mention" it. She wouldn't as it undercuts her attempt to make herself out to be a repressed martyr. But she's evidently not a very smart human rights attorney because she volunteers that information in a link to offer evidence for something else entirely.

In her post on ordainwomen.org entitled "Excommunication," she provides a hyperlink in the words "informal probation," which hyperlink takes you to her scanned copy of the May 22 letter, which confirms the May 5 meeting. In proving her informal probation, she's inadvertently disproven her claim to be blindsided by a disciplinary council only after her move, especially as the letter expressly states "Uf you choose not to repent, formal Church discipline will be required."

Here is a link to the May 22 letter:

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploa ... -Kelly.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll attach it as well in case you don't believe me or in case she later realizes her "whoopsie" and pulls it down.

[Schmoe]

This whole thing is nauseating. What makes her believe that President Monson hasn't conversed with the Lord on the matter? She, and no one else besides a living prophet, is privileged to that process and if church leadership (see: prophet of God) says that something is so, then it is. It is then your responsibility to pray directly to the Lord for confirmation that it is His will, with true intent of learning the truth for yourself and not with the intention of getting what you want to hear.

[SpiffCoug]

So is informal probation different from disfellowship?

[Ddawg]

So is informal probation different from disfellowship?

It sounds like "informal probation" is lesser than being disfellowshipped. It sounds more like a formal warning - a "shot across the bow" so to speak. Warning that serious consequences (ex-communication) is on the table if the detrimental behavior is not stopped. It sounds like Church authorities are trying to work with this person - giving fair warning about their harmful conduct.

The next step of course is - "Double Secret Probation."

[SpiffCoug]

Although, in her case it would likely be

Double Distributed-to-the-New-York-Times Probation as opposed to Secret.

[Ddawg]

Although, in her case it would likely be

Double Distributed-to-the-New-York-Times Probation as opposed to Secret.

True dat. Bam! I stand corrected. You are correct sir!

[Cougarfan87]

So is informal probation different from disfellowship?

Yes, they are different. Informal probation is not considered formal church discipline. No disciplinary council is held, and it is usually instituted by a Bishop in situations of serious transgression where a church disciplinary council is not deemed necessary. Of course, repeated transgression that did not require formal disciplinary action may lead to needed formal disciplinary action. In that case, a disciplinary council is held, and after prayerful consideration, a decision is made by the presiding authority and sustained by the council members. The member is then advised of the council's decision which can be either no action taken, formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication. Disfellowshipment means that a member does not speak in church, pray publicly, or take an active part such as a member in good standing would do. It is supposed to be temporary, not to exceed one year, after which another council is held to see what the change of status should be.