Controversial Topic: Which will cause more members to leave?

snoscythe wrote:
Well, looks like we find out soon--the Ordain Women founder and one of the most-vocal pro-gay Mormons are both headed to church disciplinary councils. It's interesting that, when they got their notices, each ran to the same place first---the New York Times, but they're not trying to exert social nor political pressure, just trying to make sure ol' President Monson hears their pleas. :roll:



I also enjoyed how they try to make hay/conspiracy out of (1) the notices of the councils being issued on consecutive days, and (2) how Mrs. Kelly's council is being held in Virginia instead of Utah following her recent move to Utah. The NYT fails to mention that Mrs. Kelly had notice of the possibility of the council and was placed on informal probation in early May--well before her move, and if a bishop feels a move is predicated to avoid discipline, he retains the right to hold the member's records and convene a council in the old ward--the ward most familiar with the alleged apostasy to avoid someone bouncing around the country to avoid a council. So not only was the timing not as coincidental as OW would make you think, but the only one trying to game the council system here is the member.

Do you have any more information about the informal probation in early may for Sister Kelly? I'd love to have that information to refute claims by feminist facebook friends.

hawkwing wrote:
Do you have any more information about the informal probation in early may for Sister Kelly? I'd love to have that information to refute claims by feminist facebook friends.

If you go to the Ordain Women website (I can't access it from work) and go to her post "Excommunication," she's actually linked to a scan of a May 22 letter she received confirming in writing that she was put on informal probation at a May 5 meeting.

I heard a little about this on the a m talk show. Thanks for filling in a little here.



What kind of church would change through public opinion? Why would they want to head a church like that? If it happened to be a church like that I wouldn't want them as my leader! No matter how much they look like martyrs they are nowhere near what Joseph Smith and many other saints were. My ancestors didn't sacrifice in crossing the plains for usurpers like this to take over.

snoscythe wrote:

Do you have any more information about the informal probation in early may for Sister Kelly? I'd love to have that information to refute claims by feminist facebook friends.

If you go to the Ordain Women website (I can't access it from work) and go to her post "Excommunication," she's actually linked to a scan of a May 22 letter she received confirming in writing that she was put on informal probation at a May 5 meeting.

Excellent, thank you.

The Salt Lake Tribune has an article on it. It is quite illuminating. If I knew how to paste and post of whatever you do I would. It shows Kelly holding a baby with a great smile. She says something about excommunication taking your ordinances and covenants and thus separating you from your family. She does not say anything about her doing this to herself.



It also has a lot on the guy being called in about the gay issue.

I think the biggest downside of being exed is losing the gift of the Holy Ghost. Personnally I think that is why some exed people go off the deadend after it happens. That road does not lead to happiness. Just bitterness and pain.

scott715 wrote:
I think the biggest downside of being exed is losing the gift of the Holy Ghost. Personnally I think that is why some exed people go off the deadend after it happens. That road does not lead to happiness. Just bitterness and pain.

I suppose they'll find out if they're excommunicated. Perhaps this has already happened.

Kelly was just on one of the a m talk shows just now. The program wouldn't allow callers unfortunately. I don't have a photo memory so I can only relate the best I can of what she said. She equates equality with priesthood ordinances and I think leadership. She did acknowledge Pres. Monsen as prophet and said she believed the church was true. I wonder how long that will last. She said there were 100s of stories on her sight of those with similar complaints. She said they were all faithful and active LDS. I question that. She suggested people go to her web sight. I wonder why I should do that when I can go to the churches web sight. She sighted the blacks getting the priesthood as evidence that she and her friends should get it. It still seems to me that she thinks public pressure from her and her organization can change the church of Jesus Christ. She acknowledged that men couldn't have children. 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 herky jerky but I thought some of you would want to know. As for me, I'll wait for changes from the Lord through his prophet. If this change has any possibility I would think they just made it much more difficult.

You either sustain your leaders or you do not.

nuk13 wrote:
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 :roll:).



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:

John Dehlin wrote:
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.

snoscythe wrote:

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 :roll:).



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:

John Dehlin wrote:
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....

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.

snoscythe wrote:

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 :roll:).



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.

nuk13 wrote:
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/uploads/2014/06/2014-05-22-Informal-Probation-Letter-to-Kate-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.

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.

So is informal probation different from disfellowship?

SpiffCoug wrote:
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."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0cF2piwjYQ

Although, in her case it would likely be



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

SpiffCoug wrote:
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! :lol:

SpiffCoug wrote:
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.