My heart is heavy this morning.
I read that Kate Kelly and others are being brought up on Church disciplinary action.
For those who are unfamiliar with the process/proceedings of LDS Church discipline, it can be a bit mystifying. There are several levels of censure that the Church may impose. These range from a simple removal of some privileges for a short period of time to the most severe action - excommunication. When one is excommunicated, the person's membership in the Church is terminated. It is a very extreme measure, and for the faithful it can be a very difficult thing to consider.
What people don't understand - what is nearly impossible for someone outside the proceedings to understand - is the amount of love felt. It's discipline. It's intended to be harsh (at times). And it's intended to be unpleasant. But it is done with love and care for the person. Since excommunication is such an extreme measure, it is really only very rarely applied. There are some circumstances when it is completely unavoidable - embezzlement, for instance. But for everything else, there seems to be a very strong reluctance to employ excommunication.
You see, when someone is excommunicated, for those who really believe it is a tragic event. The covenants entered into at baptism and at other times in one's life are completely nullified. The attendant blessings and opportunities are also removed. For those who have become disenchanted or otherwise disaffected this may not be a big deal. Some people - many people - choose to have their names removed from the records of the Church, which has the same spiritual and eternal consequences. I've read accounts of people who have either been excommunicated or had their names removed from the records of the Church who say that they feel a large burden removed, and who feel that they are finally free from the oppression they've felt for a very long time. I can understand how that would be the case - being a member of the LDS Church is not a passive thing. It carries with it a great sense of responsibility and expectation that is not easily discounted. And more importantly in some circumstances, it entails alienation from a culture and even one's own family. So if someone has chosen to separate one's self, or if it comes about through disciplinary action, it can be an extremely difficult, lonely, terrible experience - even if it is liberating.
In the case of Kate Kelly and others in the news, what is at essence a terribly personal and private thing are now national news. I am saddened to think that she will be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion regardless of the outcome of the disciplinary council. Yet, I applaud her courage and her passion, because she has undertaken a very difficult path.
But what we don't know - what we cannot ever know - is what is in her heart. And therefore, it is not our place to judge.
In our Church, we are taught to question, to ponder, to consider deeply the doctrines we are taught and how to implement them into our lives. It is a most serious thing, and it leads many to question the very core of their beliefs. All in all, I think this is a very healthy thing. Questioning a loving Heavenly Father in faith, believing that there are logical, real, and significant reasons for things is what a meaningful relationship with the Infinite is based on. There are (!) answers. He wants (!) to give them to us, and will in time, if we (if I) remain faithful and patient.
I guess I go back to the verse in 1 Nephi, where the young prophet Nephi is asked by an angel in a vision if he understands the condescension of God. (Incidentally, I'd always been troubled by the word "condescension", considering it to be a negative attribute. It is, when applied to other humans. But when applied to God, it is a quite literal thing - that He descends from His divine position to be with His children, no matter how far they have fallen. And praised be His Name forever for it!). Nephi's response is elegant and simple - he says that he doesn't know the meaning of all things, but he knows God loves His children. I love this because there are so many things that I don't know... so many areas of concern and frustration and questioning... so many dark and lonely nights... But His love shines brightly above it all, and it is on that love that I can rely.
I read that Kate Kelly and others are being brought up on Church disciplinary action.
For those who are unfamiliar with the process/proceedings of LDS Church discipline, it can be a bit mystifying. There are several levels of censure that the Church may impose. These range from a simple removal of some privileges for a short period of time to the most severe action - excommunication. When one is excommunicated, the person's membership in the Church is terminated. It is a very extreme measure, and for the faithful it can be a very difficult thing to consider.
What people don't understand - what is nearly impossible for someone outside the proceedings to understand - is the amount of love felt. It's discipline. It's intended to be harsh (at times). And it's intended to be unpleasant. But it is done with love and care for the person. Since excommunication is such an extreme measure, it is really only very rarely applied. There are some circumstances when it is completely unavoidable - embezzlement, for instance. But for everything else, there seems to be a very strong reluctance to employ excommunication.
You see, when someone is excommunicated, for those who really believe it is a tragic event. The covenants entered into at baptism and at other times in one's life are completely nullified. The attendant blessings and opportunities are also removed. For those who have become disenchanted or otherwise disaffected this may not be a big deal. Some people - many people - choose to have their names removed from the records of the Church, which has the same spiritual and eternal consequences. I've read accounts of people who have either been excommunicated or had their names removed from the records of the Church who say that they feel a large burden removed, and who feel that they are finally free from the oppression they've felt for a very long time. I can understand how that would be the case - being a member of the LDS Church is not a passive thing. It carries with it a great sense of responsibility and expectation that is not easily discounted. And more importantly in some circumstances, it entails alienation from a culture and even one's own family. So if someone has chosen to separate one's self, or if it comes about through disciplinary action, it can be an extremely difficult, lonely, terrible experience - even if it is liberating.
In the case of Kate Kelly and others in the news, what is at essence a terribly personal and private thing are now national news. I am saddened to think that she will be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion regardless of the outcome of the disciplinary council. Yet, I applaud her courage and her passion, because she has undertaken a very difficult path.
But what we don't know - what we cannot ever know - is what is in her heart. And therefore, it is not our place to judge.
In our Church, we are taught to question, to ponder, to consider deeply the doctrines we are taught and how to implement them into our lives. It is a most serious thing, and it leads many to question the very core of their beliefs. All in all, I think this is a very healthy thing. Questioning a loving Heavenly Father in faith, believing that there are logical, real, and significant reasons for things is what a meaningful relationship with the Infinite is based on. There are (!) answers. He wants (!) to give them to us, and will in time, if we (if I) remain faithful and patient.
I guess I go back to the verse in 1 Nephi, where the young prophet Nephi is asked by an angel in a vision if he understands the condescension of God. (Incidentally, I'd always been troubled by the word "condescension", considering it to be a negative attribute. It is, when applied to other humans. But when applied to God, it is a quite literal thing - that He descends from His divine position to be with His children, no matter how far they have fallen. And praised be His Name forever for it!). Nephi's response is elegant and simple - he says that he doesn't know the meaning of all things, but he knows God loves His children. I love this because there are so many things that I don't know... so many areas of concern and frustration and questioning... so many dark and lonely nights... But His love shines brightly above it all, and it is on that love that I can rely.
Comments
It is a heart sickening thing. :(
I am very interested in hearing your thoughts about it, if you'd care to elaborate.
I've mentioned in other posts that I'm a dreamer. I dream of things and possibilities and hopes and desires that are not yet. And I hope. And I work. And I try to inspire others.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out that setbacks are just opportunities for refined, more excellent effort. If elder oaks can quote Solzhenitsyn then there is hope. It is undoubtedly a setback, but it is not a defeat. Not as long as men and women of good faith are willing to discuss.
We should hold our heads high as we walk into the future. It is the ablative processes in life that refine and polish.
First, I do not support the creation of any outside organization to publicly agitate on internal church matters. As a member of the church, I have committed to sustain its leaders. "Sustain" need not mean "always agree with," but to my mind, surely it means not creating a publicity-seeking organization in direct opposition to the church’s position, inviting members to openly oppose both the church’s policies and its reasonable requests. It is possible to air concerns in a productive, straightforward, and private (rather than divisive, symbolic, and purposefully public) manner.
I think sometimes people are mistaken when they think of the Church as a democracy. It is not. It is (for the faithful) a religion organized and maintained by God Himself. For those who are not as faithful, it is a theocracy set up by a male-dominated hierarchy. I am one of the faithful, if imperfect, and certainly not the most well-informed on any subject.
But the important thing in all of this is the discussion. People can (must) have differing views. These views when aired and considered help to broaden not only the appeal but the awareness of these views. And we are all strengthened thereby.
I am sure that forty years ago people believed much like you about black people and their access to the priesthood. And I am also sure that there were many people like me who are confused about why the case existed and persisted. I am sure that there were many, many discussions with people from all kinds of backgrounds before that policy (that worthy men of any race could hold the priesthood) was changed (updated? corrected? revealed?). Perhaps in forty years (or 80 or 800) we will look back and wonder what the big deal was. Until that time the discussion should continue in every forum. Every. All.
And with regard to sustaining, do Church leaders want an ignorant following of sheep? Or do they want a zealous, intelligent membership of people who understand and commit their talents and whole souls to the cause? Because intelligent people require the discussion - again, in every forum - in order to have their faith sustained and bolstered. A person's faith in a leader may stem from the idea that the leader is inspired by God. But the reason we have these men on earth is their accessibility. They're here to listen to us and respond to our needs. This grows both parties.
The problem with quelling dissent in the manner referenced is the chilling effect, and the idea that now everyone will be afraid to voice valid, legitimate concerns.
Activist Kate Kelly said that equality in the church can be measured. Does she mean measured in righteousness, commitment, value, importance? Are we supposed to measure what we give and how much we receive? Personal intent and spiritual progression aren't really things we can weigh against the next person. So Is it just power at the heart of this issue? Is it really just 'middle management' that these few women are after? Is it about titles? There are no little brass nameplates in the Kingdom of God. Or is it the power to perform ordinances and miracles that these women want? Because I'm pretty sure the priesthood is powered by faith and humility...and trust...accepting God's will...stuff like that.
Now let's get to the real meat of the matter. We are taught to "Trust in the Lord with all Thine Heart, and Lean Not to Thine Own Understanding." Do you actually have a testimony of this commandment? I've had a few sticky moments in life when God was my only champion. I came out of those moments knowing that every time I accosted some gospel principal or teaching that made me pause, I could sort through it using both my mind and my connection with the Holy Spirit and get the assurances I needed. And I did. Every time. My role as a woman was probably the most empowering personal investigation of all. I can honestly say, that I have absolutely zero insecurities as a woman. Which is probably why I have no trouble allowing a man to take his role as a bearer of priesthood power. In fact, I insist. Go forth brethren and be exalted by your priesthood! I certainly don't think it makes you any better or higher up the spiritual food chain than me. I don't feel that I'm missing anything. And I don't see that I am either. Having this responsibility makes you better men and I honor that.
My point is that in every deep personal battle, there comes a time when you have to place your trust. Because we don't exist in isolation. I can trust myself in matters that concern only myself. But for something that concerns God's kingdom, I have to be able to trust God. Not because I'm subjugated. But because He has earned my trust. This isn't some CEO we're talking about, it's GOD. It's our FATHER. If he says I don't need to hold the priesthood right now, then I know it's the truth. Because I know what He hopes to make of me. And what He hopes to make of me could not be any better.
So why do some people turn from faith to feminism? They don't like the answer we've been given? They don't trust the God who gave it? Is that why they get angry and confused and go to the media? I guess that makes sense. Because the world understands. The world relates. The world knows how it feels to have God tell them no and ask them to follow a better way.
Being a woman is something special. But so is being a man.
The only thing I take umbrage with in your comment is the idea that somehow Kate Kelly, et al, are acting in opposition to doctrine because they're taking what is usually a very private matter into the public realm. The only thing that can absolutely be known for certain is that we don't know everything. We can't know their motives, we can't know what has prompted this course of action. We can't. And therefore we should not judge - For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Do you actually have a testimony of this commandment? Every time I've thought I had the measure of a person, that I knew for certain I'd figured that person out, I was wrong. Every time.
You may say - well, by their works we'll know. That's fine. You don't have to subscribe to their way of thinking. You don't have to take their newsletter and join the club and wear the pin and sing the song. But what you don't get to do is look at a particular action - or even a series of actions - and assume you know the person's character. We don't know how much these folks believe in God. We don't know, and because of our ignorance we should leave such aspersions as pride and title-seeking out of the conversation. It's not helpful, and I think it often says more about the person making such aspersions. Faith and feminism are not mutually exclusive. And feminism in no way diminishes my value as a man.
Some newspapers are even running polls asking readers whether they think Kelly should be excommunicated. Of course, asking for a public opinion poll about anyone’s possible excommunication is totally inappropriate, because as any Latter-day Saint knows this is a very grave matter--not a quick poll to attract readers. The question about whether this is the “right move” also comes from a false paradigm as if considering the welfare of someone’s soul should be calculated by whether others will approve of it or not or whether it will be good for the Church’s “image”.
Peggy Fletcher Stack writes this in The Salt Lake Tribune about Kelly. “she was totally, totally floored” to receive the letter from her bishop. Really? Kelly is a very smart woman and human rights attorney. She has blatantly disregarded several warnings from the Church to “cease and desist." She has been told that women couldn’t receive tickets for the General Conference priesthood session and yet she persisted. She was asked not to bring her march onto Temple Square during conference. She did it anyway. She has been asked to take down her website. Instead, she and her cohorts have amplified their website efforts, including a rousing game of “Patriarchy Bingo.” In an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, she said that she just wanted an answer on the ordination of women, but at what point does she acknowledge that she has already been given an answer in repeated ways?
How much more clear could Elder Dallin H. Oaks have been in the April 2014 General Conference when he said, “The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.”
The public is not free to make judgments on whether Kelly has committed apostasy, but the Church is free to make that judgment. Kelly is free to say whatever she would like, express herr concerns with great fervency, but not to do it from the platform of claiming to be members in good standing as they seek to build a following for their divergent point of view. Kelly is acting like a petulant child, who has been told no repeatedly when asking for ice cream or a toy at the store; if she can't get her way, she's going to throw a temper tantrum for all to see. My questions to you are, Why is your heart heavy when Kelly is the only reason this was brought to the public's attention? What kind of God answers with the affirmative just to quiet the loud, crying, threatening child? Any parent who placates their child with a candy bar in the grocery store just so they don't have to face the condeming looks of the onlooking shoppers is not a good parent, and is certainly not doing what is best for the child. Would you want our loving Heavenly Father to act that way? Referring to Isiah 55:8-9, why does Kate Kelly not believe this scripture?
My heart is heavy for many reasons, not the least of which is that this woman's actions and motives are being scrutinized in a very public way, and that tends to have a deleterious effect on people - particularly the ones doing the scrutiny. It is also heavy because of effects like those noted above by another anonymous post, where it appears the discussion is being quelled. This Church is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorship where only one opinion may be heard. What do you make of the repeated injunction to ask, seek, and knock? I know of no more frequently repeated commandment. I believe this is because the Lord wants us to know Him, and the only way to do that is to ask, to seek, and to knock. We believe that the leaders of our Church are His mouthpieces, and that we can seek guidance from them as they represent the Lord. I found Elder Oaks' talk very expository, and that it answered many of the questions I had. But my experience does not preclude another from having a different experience, and I can see how the talk could generate additional questions.
I don't think Sister Kelly has ever asked for an affirmative answer, just an answer that satisfies her. I believe - at the very core of my faith - in a personal God who does indeed answer questions. Every question, whether (maybe especially) asked petulantly or not. Are we not His children? Do we not all have claim on that conduit to His responses? Isn't that the foundation of our Church - that of a young man wondering what was right and taking his questions to a loving Heavenly Father?
You should continue the Isaiah quote to the next two verses, and perhaps preface the citation in its proper context by including verse 6. The implication is that yes, the Lord's thoughts are higher and more excellent than ours, but that we should seek to know His thoughts. So, in context, your citation seems to bolster my point.
Because I believe that this is God’s church, I believe that He has the right to decide what is good for His church in each day and age. What was appropriate in ancient times may not be appropriate today, and vice versa. Even Jesus Himself came to reveal the “new law” for His day.
I don’t drink coffee. Why? Because the prophet said God doesn’t want me to right now. I have no idea if the Lord’s command not to drink coffee is a long term thing or a temporary law for our day. All I know is the prophet said it…so I don’t drink coffee.”
Personally, I find comfort knowing that God is specifically leading us in OUR day. We’ve seen things change- even when it comes to the priesthood. Change is not something foreign to our religion. But I know God knows what is best for His people in 2014– and He will make the changes He sees fit through His prophet. We can (and should) ask questions. But when we start telling God what to do and how to change His doctrine, that’s when it crosses the line.
Suppose Brother Joseph had had the same attitude as you seem to be espousing. That is - shucks, I'm only a 14 year old kid in upstate New York. I don't know what God wants, but shucks, He's God, and He will decide what is right for the world. After all, God is at the helm, and I don't want to steady the ark. I should just meekly accept whatever the current tenets are and trust that God loves His children.
I don't drink coffee for many reasons, not the least of which is that it doesn't appeal to me at all. But the reason I (try to) keep the commandments is not because God said so, but because I love God and want to be like Him.
And if dictating to God what I want to have happen is a sin, I am guilty of it. I don't believe that's an offense worthy of excommunication. When my child was in the emergency room, I didn't humbly ask God to help me accept His will. I wanted Him to preserve my child. I told Him exactly what I thought should happen. Arrogant? Proud? Probably blasphemous? You bet. But the anguished cry of a wounded soul? Absolutely. And do you know what? I don't think I've ever felt closer to God.
The point is - you don't (!) get to judge another's motives for prayer. You may judge another's actions (although I feel this is more revealing of the person doing said judging) and you may decide that that's not the course of action for you. But you don't - cannot - know what's in a person's soul, and you cannot apply your world view and experiences to someone else. You're only doing a disservice to yourself and to them.
I, too, take great comfort in knowing that this is God's Church. I believe that with all my heart. He does know what's best. That is never the question - the question is ever: why? Why does God do things the way He does? And what does that mean to me? What bearing does that have on my salvation? What does that mean for my family, my wife and my daughter, myself and my son? Why are such things related to gender? Is it a social construct, or is there a logical reason? If there is, what is it? And why can't we know it - other than just, God said so? I trust God, and if that's all the answer we get, I suppose that's all the answer we get. But I believe that the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of the Divine, and that eternal life is to know God. I mean, really, really know Him. I want my motives for obedience to God to be such that I do things not just because I am obedient but because I understand (at least in part) the WHY of God's commands. I feel like that makes me a better servant, and hopefully on my way to becoming God's friend, which is my ultimate goal for this life.
I repeat: Kate Kelly was NOT asking a question. Not anymore. She was sharing a teaching, a belief.
From Ordain Women's mission statement: "Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to to reflect the equality and expansiveness of [the fundamental tenets of Mormonism]."
While other language on the website reflects the idea of "asking" Church leaders to prayerfully consider the topic, the fact is that they believe that women should be ordained. Not "We wonder if women should be ordained" or "We are exploring the idea of ordaining women" or "We doubt that God meant for His priesthood to be held exclusively by men." No. Their belief is set. In fact, each member profile on the Ordain Women website ends the same way: "I believe that women should be ordained."
This is not a question. This is a statement of belief. It is a teaching.
This is further supported by Ordain Women's six "discussions" that explain their cause and mission. They are trying to teach people. They are not seeking an answer. Rather, they have found their answer and are unwilling to accept any alternatives. They are demanding their solution. The very name of their organization is a command: Ordain Women.
Kate Kelly is not forbidden from wondering if women should be ordained. She is not forbidden from praying about the subject, or from discussing it with her family and friends and local leaders. She can even believe that women will receive the priesthood someday, when God reveals it. She can believe that, and not be excommunicated.
What she can't do is teach it as though it were established doctrine. Not without permission from the people who are tasked with keeping the doctrine in line with God's will. She taught it anyway. They asked her to stop. She didn't.
Here I must point out -- If any limit is placed on the questions we ask, it is this: that no person can receive revelation for an area outside their stewardship. Stewardship, for most members, means the member and his/her family. For a bishop, it means him, his family, and his ward. For the prophet (and only the prophet) it means the entire church. To sustain a leader of the church is to agree to be led by his/her counsel, and to respect his/her area of jurisdiction.
Kate Kelly was not, is not, never has been, in a position to receive revelation for the entire church. Not only that, but she sustained her bishop and stake president, along with the general leaders of the church -- the prophet and apostles. She agreed to respect them, and to allow their words and insights to help her find answers to her questions. But when they gave her counsel she didn't agree with, she refused to listen. That is not asking. That is demanding to hear an answer that she has already given herself. At some point, Sister Kelly crossed the boundary from honest questioning and well-intentioned doubting to preaching a doctrine contrary to the teachings of the church. She continued to do so after being asked to stop. This teaching needed to be dissociated with the official doctrine of the church. This is why she was excommunicated -- not because she asked a question.
Let me be clear: Mormons are not expected to believe anything. We are not expected to follow blindly. We are encouraged to ask for and seek truth. We are taught to ask with sincere hearts and unwavering faith. We are told that this sincere asking will bring us personal peace and guidance. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not prohibit, hinder, or in any way discourage questions. It just doesn't. And if Ordain Women really had been asking a question, Kate Kelly's story may have ended differently.
But know this - ignorance may be bliss, but there is no salvation in ignorance.
Every subject's duty is the king, but every subject's soul is his own.
Henry V Act 4 Scene 1
Your original post seems almost discreditable to me since you have not answered ANY of the valid points in the several comment posts above, only calling these arguments straw men and quoting Shakespeare. That is no way to discuss. You are shutting others down in the same way you are upset at the church for shutting Kelly down.
God may not change His mind, but he sure changes policy. Polygamy and blacks holding the priesthood are two obvious things. What instigated these changes? What is the very foundation of our Church? A man asking God. And before you say we have a prophet, please note that the prophet is a man and all that that entails. When Wilford Woodruff came out of the temple and said we weren't going to do polygamy, and when President Kimball came out of the temple saying blacks could hold the priesthood, did anyone say that God can't change and that the prophet was off base? Well, some. But what motivated the question in the first place? Social changes? Government pressure? Or someone just asking a question?
I would never claim to know the sacred conversations that happen in the temple between the prophet and The Lord. All I can know is my own experience balanced against that of others. And yet, we are judging sister Kelly against our own experience and assumptions. I choose to reserve judgement and applaud her courage for being willing to do what she feels is right, whether I agree or not. For the record, I don't necessarily agree with her stance or her tactics. I think you know me better than that. It's the thinking and exploring and guts that I applaud. I wish that more people were like that. I wish I were more like that.