Who is Lying? Kate Kelly or her Bishop?

[_Kishkumen]

Why does any local leader imagine there is any significance to the SCMC handing over a file on a member?

What could that possibly do to influence that leader's impression of that member?

Gee, I wonder.

[_Droopy]

Who's lying? Let's see: a left-wing radical feminist apostate with a megalithic ego leading an obscure, irrelevant movement that the vast majority of LDS women want nothing to do with, desperate for media attention, who broadcasts and politicizes her church disciplinary council and personal letters to her from her ecclesiastical leaders, and who is publicly in outright revolt, for her own personal ego-satisfaction, personal agenda, and loyalty to an ideology hostile to the gospel, against virtually every fundamental standard and truth claim of the Church.

I wonder...

Genetic fallacy

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.

The Baron is a great avatar for you, Johnnie.

The best yet.

[_Symmachus]

an obscure, irrelevant movement

I agree. Mormonism is obscure and irrelevant.

[_Darth J]

Who's lying? Let's see: a left-wing radical feminist apostate with a megalithic ego leading an obscure, irrelevant movement that the vast majority of LDS women want nothing to do with, desperate for media attention, who broadcasts and politicizes her church disciplinary council and personal letters to her from her ecclesiastical leaders, and who is publicly in outright revolt, for her own personal ego-satisfaction, personal agenda, and loyalty to an ideology hostile to the gospel, against virtually every fundamental standard and truth claim of the Church.

I wonder...

Genetic fallacy

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.

The Baron is a great avatar for you, Johnnie.

The best yet.

Yes, I am aware that you have nothing to say in response.

You know, Droopy, there is a meta problem with the Ordain Women movement that overshadows the obvious problem of exposing the LDS Church's silly, arbitrary sexism for what it is. The meta problem is that Ordain Women asks the Bretheren to get a revelation. And the Bretheren are not prepared for someone to call their bluff like that.

[_Brackite]

Droopy has joined this thread!!

[_Quasimodo]

Droopy has joined this thread!!

Well, I guess this is a good thing.

[_Bazooka]

I wasn't aware that this was the story that I had bought into, Water Dog.

Well let's see.

Obviously, she was not minding her own business. She was asking that the Brethren pray about the ordination of women.

Yep, that's the one. Seems my mind reading skills are intact.

Let me help you.

She was asking [demanding] that the Brethren pray about the ordination of [ordain] women.

Putting Water Dog's lack of credibility to one side for a moment, I have to agree.
The tone and wording of Ordain Women is one of "Ordain women" not "Ask about the ordination of women please".

[Guest]

Consig, I found this blog which I think you will find interesting.

Outlined below are ways in which Kate Kelly’s leaders either knowingly or unknowingly circumvented established church procedure in bringing charges of apostasy against her.

http://rationalfaiths.com/kate-kellys-l ... -handbook/

M.

ETA: I was snooping at the Rational Faiths Mormon Blog site and it appears Consig that you are very familiar with this site. :)

[_Tim the Enchanter]

Oh I totally agree with you that he's received as the authority, and that's the problem. Note that Clayton himself denies that when he or the SCMC counsels leaders, that they are officially influencing the leaders. Clayton himself has clarified that it's totally, 100%, the local leaders' role to bring discipline. Yet, the leaders seem to "read between the lines". In fact, it's plausible that in his capacity as the SCMC representative that he maintains a layer of deniability here, whether this is intended or not. If Hallstrom were to make the recommendation, it would be nearly impossible to not read it as a direct order. Since the SCMC is an independent committee, a "clipping service", then Clayton can serve clips all day long. But unless this arrangement is understood in advance, the bounds of this KGB-like organization could be pressed. I tend to think the Church is NOT coordinated enough that all this has cleanly been worked out. Of course, I could be wrong. But I think it's definitely worth it for Stake Presidents to wake up, and to get clarification from their GA escalation points on how they are to take Clayton's or others' "recommendations".

I think the church is coordinated to pull it off, but I could be wrong as well. It just seems to me that for a church that is coordinated enough to have the same letter from the first presidency read in each congregation on the same week (give or take a week or so in some cases) and has meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting for priesthood leaders, they have ample opportunities to coordinate. It would not seem like a stretch to me that when the presidents of the 70 meet (and I'm sure they do regularly) there is an implicit understanding of "Pres. Clayton, given your role with the SCMC, please counsel the local leaders in Virginia." The Presidents of the 70 were all local leaders once. They know with virtual certainty how local leaders will react when a high ranking church official "counsels" with them (especially with an apostle present. wasn't Ballard there as well?). It just seems too easy for them to coordinate things like this.

[_huckelberry]

Further to your post here, Droopy, how sure are you that your deity doesn't want women to have the priesthood?

(a) As sure as the LDS Church was that black men should not have the priesthood, which it now says was never the will of God
(b) More sure than the LDS Church was that black men should not have the priesthood, which it now says was never the will of God
(c) Less sure than the LDS Church was that black men should not have the priesthood, which it now says was never the will of God

When has the church ever even vaguely suggested that it was never the will of God. The only things I have heard was that it is no longer the will of God for the present and the reasons for the ban previously suggested could be wrong because they are speculations. That leaves more than ample room to think the ban was the will of God when it was being applied. I suspect tbm see it that way with few exceptions.

I suppose it is entirely possible possible at some future time for the church to declarer the current ban of women holding the priesthood to come to an end. That would be miles away from saying they were wrong. The distinction has a lot to do with why the leadership is unhappy with Kate.