CougarCorner

One position that I haven't seen too much in the pro or con arguments is that the process of the disciplinary council, and ultimately excommunication, protect Sister Kelly from her covenants. For some reason I've been thinking a lot about covenants lately, so maybe it's my bias, but here's my thought process (though I may not be as succinct or eloquent as some of you):

As long as Sister Kelly remained a member of the Church (whether in good standing or under some type of discipline) she was bound by the convenants she made (baptismal, temple, marriage, etc.) By excommunicating her from the Church, her Bishopric released her from those covenants, so that she is no longer subject to the downside of violation. (Clearly, she cannot be saved without those covenants, so there's some repentance and reconciliation required for exaltation, but she also cannot be damned for further violations of coventants that no longer apply.)

This is a very "justice-and-mercy" kind of situation: her actions merited her disassociation from the Church. Her leaders lovingly & mercifully released her from the covenants she could not endure.

I don't say this to imply that "she got what she deserved". Rather, she got what she most needed to be able to return to the strait and narrow. Had she continued these actions under covanent, she would have brought upon herself further condemnation.

Great point

Ungoy wrote:That pretty much sums it up, Sno. Great post.

Quotes such as "I can more clearly see the face of God, and she is beautiful." and "God is male and female, father and mother." She is trying to change who we worship.

I do not believe the being she refers to is pleased with her.

HoosierCougar wrote:One position that I haven't seen too much in the pro or con arguments is that the process of the disciplinary council, and ultimately excommunication, protect Sister Kelly from her covenants. For some reason I've been thinking a lot about covenants lately, so maybe it's my bias, but here's my thought process (though I may not be as succinct or eloquent as some of you):

As long as Sister Kelly remained a member of the Church (whether in good standing or under some type of discipline) she was bound by the convenants she made (baptismal, temple, marriage, etc.) By excommunicating her from the Church, her Bishopric released her from those covenants, so that she is no longer subject to the downside of violation. (Clearly, she cannot be saved without those covenants, so there's some repentance and reconciliation required for exaltation, but she also cannot be damned for further violations of coventants that no longer apply.)

This is a very "justice-and-mercy" kind of situation: her actions merited her disassociation from the Church. Her leaders lovingly & mercifully released her from the covenants she could not endure.

I don't say this to imply that "she got what she deserved". Rather, she got what she most needed to be able to return to the strait and narrow. Had she continued these actions under covanent, she would have brought upon herself further condemnation.

I'd never thought of it that way before and it makes sense.

mizzoucoug wrote:

HoosierCougar wrote:One position that I haven't seen too much in the pro or con arguments is that the process of the disciplinary council, and ultimately excommunication, protect Sister Kelly from her covenants. For some reason I've been thinking a lot about covenants lately, so maybe it's my bias, but here's my thought process (though I may not be as succinct or eloquent as some of you):

As long as Sister Kelly remained a member of the Church (whether in good standing or under some type of discipline) she was bound by the convenants she made (baptismal, temple, marriage, etc.) By excommunicating her from the Church, her Bishopric released her from those covenants, so that she is no longer subject to the downside of violation. (Clearly, she cannot be saved without those covenants, so there's some repentance and reconciliation required for exaltation, but she also cannot be damned for further violations of coventants that no longer apply.)

This is a very "justice-and-mercy" kind of situation: her actions merited her disassociation from the Church. Her leaders lovingly & mercifully released her from the covenants she could not endure.

I don't say this to imply that "she got what she deserved". Rather, she got what she most needed to be able to return to the strait and narrow. Had she continued these actions under covanent, she would have brought upon herself further condemnation.

I'd never thought of it that way before and it makes sense.

I concur. Excommunication is hopefully a temporary status that changes upon sincere repentance of the individual. Though the ordinance of baptism and confirmation must be performed again to renew the baptismal covenants and re-enter the church, the rest of the ordinances are restored through a restoration of blessings ordinance--a Priesthood blessing carried out under the direction of a General Authority, usually by a Stake President.

I served a part of my mission in a little branch that was struggling mightily. The branch president was a senior missionary couple since the local members were not very strong. We were not finding anyone to teach and the branch was pretty draining. 2 of the members made some very poor choices which led to church discipline from the Mission President (it was a mission branch). It was sad to go through it and many of the other members were angry because they felt the church was kicking a few people when they were down. We tried to teach the reasoning and purpose of church discipline but there were a few that couldn't accept that.

Fast forward a few weeks and there was such a change in the branch. The attendance dropped significantly but the spirit there was completely different. We all of a sudden started finding people to teach and baptize. It was sad that it had taken some excommunications to shake up and move the branch forward but it did.

As far as the Kate Kelly excommunication, I am not happy that it came to that. I do see that a lot of people have had to reconcile their testimonies and that is never a bad thing. These siftings are nothing new and sadly I think there will be more in the coming days.

I got asked to substitute for an institute class on false prophets before the second coming of Christ so I felt I had to read up on Sister Kelly. It's a sad case.

Unfortunately, she doesn't understand the church disciplinary process (the authors of the Herald and DN don't seem to either). It's really too bad she didn't work with the high councilors chosen to support her. It can make a big difference, even to someone who isn't very penitent initially, to see they have someone on their side.