Sanctorian wrote:Aside from wearing new temple unworthy shoulder showing attire, Kate really exposes herself for what she really is. I believe she is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" if you will. When asked if she believes Thomas Monson is a prophet, she responds, "I believe he is the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of which I am no longer a member". This is a play on words. A TBM would say he is the Prophet on the Earth today for everyone regardless if they are a member or not. Basically, she is saying as a member, we sustain him as our leader and we call him a prophet, but in reality, I do not believe he is a prophet in the biblical sense. To her, this is just a title the church gives Thomas Monson, but it really does not mean what most TBM's believe it means.
This is BS.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
It's not really going to be a mystery what Kate Kelly "is". If she truly believes in the Church, she will want to be a member of it, and so she will do what she needs to be rebaptised (even if that requires her to swallow her pride and set aside the issue of women and the priesthood).
If she feels that she is right and the Church is wrong, then she won't.
It looks like she is choosing the latter in the short term, but that could change over time. Who knows?
cinepro wrote:It's not really going to be a mystery what Kate Kelly "is". If she truly believes in the Church, she will want to be a member of it, and so she will do what she needs to be rebaptised (even if that requires her to swallow her pride and set aside the issue of women and the priesthood).
If she feels that she is right and the Church is wrong, then she won't.
It looks like she is choosing the latter in the short term, but that could change over time. Who knows?
To many people like her, the "church" is much larger than just the buildings and administrators. It is the "gospel", which I believe she still wants to be a part of.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
cinepro wrote:It's not really going to be a mystery what Kate Kelly "is". If she truly believes in the Church, she will want to be a member of it, and so she will do what she needs to be rebaptised (even if that requires her to swallow her pride and set aside the issue of women and the priesthood).
If she feels that she is right and the Church is wrong, then she won't.
It looks like she is choosing the latter in the short term, but that could change over time. Who knows?
When you use the term "Church" here, I think you really mean "Church leadership". The fact is that she is now in anther ward and stake and her path back to membership should be through her local leaders, leaders who may have an entirely different perspective on the severity of her actions. A lot will depend on whether or not SLC itself is taking an active part in this process (in which case they would clearly be lying about not involving themselves in local decisions) but if they take a hands off approach, who know what her present stake president will require her to do.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
The identification of the Church narrowly with its leadership is precisely what is at issue. Those who accept, consciously or otherwise, that the leadership is the Church support Kate's excommunication.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:New flash, Sanctorian: you can infer what you like, but you do not know that she does not believe he is a prophet "in the biblical sense" (which could mean a variety of things).
I bet she passed many a temple recommend interview with the same answer, just as many LDS people have. I don't see any evidence of apostasy here.
Yes. I agree. But with regards to the temple question, I believe there is wiggle room on the interpretation. The questions states: Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?
Sustaining is very different than believing. I sustain Thomas Monson as the Prophet of the Mormon church. I just don't believe he is a prophet.
Sanctorian wrote:Aside from wearing new temple unworthy shoulder showing attire, Kate really exposes herself for what she really is. I believe she is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" if you will. When asked if she believes Thomas Monson is a prophet, she responds, "I believe he is the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of which I am no longer a member". This is a play on words. A TBM would say he is the Prophet on the Earth today for everyone regardless if they are a member or not. Basically, she is saying as a member, we sustain him as our leader and we call him a prophet, but in reality, I do not believe he is a prophet in the biblical sense. To her, this is just a title the church gives Thomas Monson, but it really does not mean what most TBM's believe it means.
She's attorney. She's smart. She knows words are power and she uses her words wisely, but in this case, I think she slipped up and exposed her true side. I agree with her movement and Ordain Women simply because I believe it would make the church less fundamental and extreme, but she is not what she is claiming to be which is a TBM through and through.
Kishkumen wrote:Other than engaging in baseless speculation, what is your point?
You have shown, yet again, that passing a temple recommend interview does not require hat you be a fundamentalist.
I don't have a point besides speculation. Just that I use to believe she was a sincere TBM and now I'm not so sure. I still agree with OW. I still think the church screwed up in her excommunication. I support her cause. I just think the "I'm a true believer" mantra she is portraying is not all that accurate.