Comments on: Speaking of Excommunication

By: Homecoming for Mormon Missionaries | Sharp and Pointed

Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:47:57 +0000

[…] Speaking of Excommunication […]

]]>

By: Henry Lions

Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:16:47 +0000

Had your point been valid Michael McAlpine every religious reformer, including Jesus, would have been striped of membership and ignored throughout history. Christianity if it still existed at all would be a minor variation on Judaism, practices by a few people in Israel, thee would have been no St.Paul, no apostles spreading the Gospel, no split between the eastern orthodox and the Roman Catholic faiths, no reformers, no Protestantism and no Joseph Smith.
All religions are progressive, all change and adapt to (hopefully) the greater good
You say “Mormonism cannot ordain women. The Mormon gospel would cease being what it is.” the same argument was used against giving women the vote, giving women equal pay giving women equal rights and specifically against the ordination of Women in the C of E, it did not destroy the church of England and has in fact strengthened it, it did not destroy the work places of the world by paying women the same as men. it did not destroy parliamentary democracy by letting women vote.
If the God of the LDS could disallow the ordination of black men until 1978, he can under appeal from his own prophet do the same again for his daughters in 2014.
Kate Kelly believes this and has been punished for holding and propagating that belief, when it does happen I hope she feels it has been a pain worth enduring

]]>

By: Henry Lions

Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:04:19 +0000

Poop jokes? Really?
I think that brings an end to this discussion, and adequately shows the level your mind operates on.

]]>

By: robinobishop

Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:26:27 +0000

“I was making a case for defiance of established precedent, in that those who have done that of which sister Kelly stands accused have not suffered the same punishment.”

Right. You have substituted people totally foreign to this entire discussion for the former Mormon and official apostate, Mrs. Kelly.

If you have anything at all to say in defense of Kelly, as in her high regard of Priesthood authority as presently constituted in the Church, present it.

A Red Herring is not a “rule of rhetoric”; it is a deliberate logical fallacy.

I can appreciate that little Johnny down the street regularly dumps a big one on the middle of the family pool table and is not properly punished. My dear son, Henry, should you dump even a small one on our family pool table, you will receive a scalding of your behind end because those are the rules of this house.

]]>

By: Michael McAlpine

Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:53:07 +0000

Every organisation has some sort of system formal or otherwise, that sets out the rules of admittance to membership and on-going membership. I hold three public accounting designations in two countries. There are rules of admittance and rules to which I must conform as a member. I cannot be dishonest or behave in a way which brings the profession into disrepute. If I seriously violate those rules of professional conduct, I will be fined and excluded from membership and not longer entitled to use the letters after my name. I would not be surprised if I was excluded, I know the rules and if I break them, I know I am out.

The same goes for the University where I work. We have a conflict of interest policy. If I breach that policy then I will face discipline from my employer which could result in my exclusion from the University as an employee. Of course, as a half time student, I also face rules that govern my academic behaviour. I know the rules and submit to them, they make sense.

It sounds like there are some rules that govern continued membership in the Mormon community. I don’t know what they are, but the Mormons may make their rules, interpret their rules and publish them so people know them.

If there are rules and I don’t know them, I should still be able to appreciate that if my actions lead to embarrassment or division of the organisation, my acceptance by that organisation may be in turn threatened. In asking to be ordained, Kate Kelly did not do anything wrong, but she did show that she lacks, in my opinion, an understanding of Mormon doctrine.

Mormonism cannot ordain women. The Mormon gospel would cease being what it is. A man goes to the temple and is sealed to his opposite sex spouse. Both persons have a new name, the man learns the women’s name so that he can take her through the veil into the glory of the afterlife. The woman does not learn the man’s name. She doesn’t need to know it, as it is the man who calls the woman in the resurrection to him, and any other woman he is sealed to. This is one example only, and to ordain women is to turn this divinely given order upside down. It is to actually admit that Joseph Smith got it wrong, that the order of the sexes in the eternal kingdom is not what he said it was.

Kate Kelly challenged the order and structure of the church, not by asking that women be allowed to participate more fully in the church hierarchy as Sunday School Presidents, Ward Clerks, Stake Executive Secretaries and so forth. Women are already over men when men serve as Primary teachers. It is not a great stretch to build on that and take it further. That wonderful institution of the Anglican Communion serves as a progressive example to the Ordain Women movement.

Kate Kelly was told a number of times, that her message had been heard, it was not agreed with and that she should stop, her actions were deemed embarrassing and out of step with views that could be accommodated within Mormonism. I agree that she aired her views freely and no one said she couldn’t. However, once it was clear that she was offside, the organisation acted within its rights to exclude her from participating. I have no problem with it at all.

Do I think that women should be involved in the Mormon Organisation more fully? Yes I do and it would be easy to remove the administrative practice that keeps them from those positions I mentioned above. There is no doctrine that keeps them from those roles, only an administrative practice. it would be easier to give women those roles than it was to give blacks the priesthood.

Kate Kelly was not challenging the patriarchy, she was challenging foundational doctrines associated with the core beliefs of the church. She should only have received what she should have expected. That she was genuinely surprised by the outcome strikes me as surprising.

]]>

By: Henry Lions

Fri, 27 Jun 2014 22:20:05 +0000

No robinobishop, it is not Ignoratio elenchi, as I made no attempt to divert or change the argument, it is was not a red herring either for similar reasons, if you are going to quote rules of rhetoric please read the whole of the article before you cherry pick it.
I was making a case for defiance of established precedent, in that those who have done that of which sister Kelly stands accused have not suffered the same punishment.
If you were as clever as you think you are you would not have used the Continuum fallacy as a thinly disguised Ad hominem attack. The best you might have been able to accuse me of is argumentum ad antiquitatem (Appeal to tradition) but of course you did not and now I have saved you the trouble.

Now have anything to say about the actual points I made regarding biblical precedent the the fact that the whole of the excommunication was unjust and in defiance of theological and moral lore?

]]>

By: robinobishop

Fri, 27 Jun 2014 21:17:58 +0000

henry,
That’s a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi); it’s an intentional fallacy. This discussion is about the former Mormon, Kate Kelly, not assorted Presidents of the Church.

]]>

By: Henry Lions

Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:39:20 +0000

sorry that should read Luke 3-6

]]>

By: Henry Lions

Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:34:09 +0000

Interesting article that ultimately say Kate Kelly was not excommunicated for asking questions, she was excommunicated for holding and expressing an opinion and a belief that was not an official church teaching.
Wow! Well then why has not Brigham Young gone through postMortem excommunication, the Journal of discourses is full of teachings he declared to be scriptural but which the LDS today TOTALLY disavow as official teaching. Same with President Snow for his trouble some as God once was rhyme , Bruce R. McConkie for his misnamed book of prejudices Mormon Doctrine and a dozen others.
Why? Oh yes that’s right, because all of them were men, where as Kate is a jumped up chit of a girl who, ” was not, is not, never has been, in a position to receive revelation for the entire church” which is not something she has EVER claimed to be.

Kate Kelly has demanded the right for women to be treated as equal to men, she has demanded it of the church and yes indirectly she has demanded it of God, who has set biblical precedent on these matters.

Luke 18:3
Matthew 7:7-8
1 Samuel 1:15-18
Acts 18:26
Judges 4:4
Judges 5:7-8

to name but a few

]]>

By: Henry Lions

Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:49:15 +0000

Phew!

]]>