DiscussMormonism.com

Gadianton wrote:

Are you really that ignorant?

Ignorant of what, or in what way?

What good does it do to inform Kate on what the definition of apostasy is a week after she'd been excommunicated?

This is something the brethren should have clearly communicated to her in December. They didn't. Their own excommunication letter makes that clear.

The definition of apostasy used comes from Book 1 which stake presidents and bishops use. My guess is that Kate Kelly was made aware of this before she was excommunicated, but I don't know when.

palerobber wrote:i don't understand why the First Presidency would be commenting on a private matter "between a member and his or her local Church leader".

they aren't.

Where does it say women can't have the priesthood?

It says:

"Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices"

It does not say women are not allowed to have these offices, now or in the future.

It has clarified nothing other than to stipulate what we already know.

How does asking about what it does not say constitute constitute open rebellion?

Even more so, how does asking our leaders to answer direct questions constitute apostasy?

At this point they could excommunicate some one who openly asked for an explanation the excommunication of someone else.

This is mess of porridge is what they finally consider worthy of affixing there name to? Not clarifying why God excluded the blacks from the priesthood? Not clarifying why God won't let women have the priesthood or at least declaring that God does not want women to hold priesthood. Not clarifying if we really can become Gods one day like him? Seriously when the 12 and 1st presidency finally decide to make a public announcement it is express disapproval of dissent.

What a total waste of a statement.

by the way, this statement is in part just a recitation, nearly word for word, of the definition of apostacy given in Handbook 1 (not available to lay members like Kelly).

The First Presidency wrote:Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

CHI 1 (2010) wrote:As used here, apostacy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Formally join another church.

left unsaid, as always, is what exactly consitutes "opposition" and what "false" claims Kelly made about LDS doctrine.

palerobber wrote:by the way, this statement is in part just a recitation, nearly word for word, of the definition of apostacy given in Handbook 1 (not available to lay members like Kelly).

The First Presidency wrote:Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

CHI 1 (2010) wrote:As used here, apostacy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Formally join another church.

left unsaid, as always, is what exactly consitutes "opposition" and what "false" claims Kelly made about LDS doctrine.

it's nice to see that somebody still respects the oxford comma.

In reference to the statements claim that the blessings of the priesthood are equally available to men and women.

How does a woman receive an equal blessing to a man in terms of naming a child?

Bazooka wrote:In reference to the statements claim that the blessings of the priesthood are equally available to men and women.

How does a woman receive an equal blessing to a man in terms of naming a child?

She gets to listen to the blessing, just like any one else.

It is similar to being in Saudi Arabia where only men are allowed to drive. Women can always find a men to drive them where they need to go, so what is the difference if they still get to where they need to go?

Everyone in a car gets to enjoy the benefits of being in the car. Why is it important who gets to drive?

Fence Sitter wrote:

Bazooka wrote:In reference to the statements claim that the blessings of the priesthood are equally available to men and women.

How does a woman receive an equal blessing to a man in terms of naming a child?

She gets to listen to the blessing, just like any one else.

It is similar to being in Saudi Arabia where only men are allowed to drive. Women can always find a men to drive them where they need to go, so what is the difference if they still get to where they need to go?

Everyone in a car gets to enjoy the benefits of being in the car. Why is it important who gets to drive?

But the priesthood blessings of the naming of a child come from the feelings and thoughts and bonding that come from doing the act of laying on the hands. The females in Saudi cannot equally feel the rush that comes from flooring the accelerator simply by being sat in the car.

On a side note, I wonder if the Washington Post has tried to interview Randy Bott as to why he thinks Mormon women are not allow to hold the priesthood? Maybe the female body is poorly equipped to climb ladders?

Bazooka wrote:[

But the priesthood blessings of the naming of a child come from the feelings and thoughts and bonding that come from doing the act of laying on the hands. The females in Saudi cannot equally feel the rush that comes from flooring the accelerator simply by being sat in the car.

Who knows what is going on underneath those burkas?