In your now-closed thread, you wrote:

"Please provide a reference wherein Katy Kelly has publicly criticized church leaders."

To which I responded:

The very fact that she began her movement, started a website, and led a group of women to protest during general conference are all examples of criticism. Opposition is criticism.

You:

"Requesting equality and inclusion is not publicly criticizing church leaders."

Me:

Of course it is. When you challenge or oppose church leaders' teachings, you are in effect criticizing them. It means you believe that the leaders are wrong about a doctrinal or policy issue, and that is criticism.

You:

"The Oaks quote does not say anything about opposing the church leaders."

Me:

That's merely semantics. Public opposition equates to criticism.

You:

"Since we are clearly miles apart and will likely never reach agreement, I see no purpose in pursuing this further."

I didn't know that we were trying to reach any agreement. You asked some questions, and I answered them based on my knowledge and experience with Mormon doctrine and history. The bottom line is that the "prophet" can dictate anything he wishes to be church doctrine or policy. It doesn't have to have precedent, or scriptural authority, or a sustaining vote.

Katy Kelley has publicly opposed the current church policy re: women holding the priesthood. When you publicly oppose the Mormon prophet, or by extension church doctrine or policy, you are in effect criticizing him. You are implying that he is not performing his calling as prophet, and that, of course, is criticism.

Here are some quotes from Mormon leaders on the subject:

"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators' of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostacy. One cannot speak evil of the lord's annointed... and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking."

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."---Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945

"When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over".---N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3

"Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray."---Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)

"That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”---History of the Church, 3:385; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 2, 1839

"The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
"In section 132 verse 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 132:7] the Lord speaks of the prophet—the president—and says:
“There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.”---Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet"

"The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
"Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.)---ibid.

And then there's Bruce R. McConkie's counsel to Eugene England:

"it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact still remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do."

I understand all of it the same way you do randyj.

I learned the "gospel" (as a young woman convert) at the feet of apostles in their younger years: Faust, Peterson, Packer, McConkie, McKay,Lee, Tanner, Brown, etc., etc.

Those were the days when the apostles traveled, stayed in the local leaders homes, spoke in conferences, also at BYU spoke at Firesides, sometimes very intimate groups with lots and lots of discussion, and the weekly Devotions.

One statement by McConkie that has always stuck with me.
He said: if you have A and B you can get to C.

Later when I worked for CES, I had the opportunity to reap the benefit of a lot of discussion and clarification from the leaders to the Institute Directors.

This works with this OW movement. I have never been convinced that the leaders were true believers or they wouldn't be taking this position. So something else is behind it.

Much of the LDS Gospel is nuanced, implied, it's unwritten, understood.

There is clear definition of stewardship also within the LDS Church.

Addendum: It's my view that the leader of the OW group and possibly many others knew that they were putting their membership on the line simply by organizing. I don't know how they couldn't be aware of that. It's also my view, that they didn't care. That leads some to the conclusion that they are in "apostasy" to start with.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2014 02:46AM by SusieQ#1.