I agree, especially since they postponed his in order to “deescalate” the situation.
Male only priesthood was something I looked at very carefully when I was in RCIA. It makes sense within our Catholic understanding of in persona Christi. LDS don’t have this understanding about their own priesthood.I have only vaguely followed this matter. I’m not familiar with the proceedings and how things may or may not have been done in an appropriate manner, or may or may not have followed the rules set forth by the LDS church itself (again, I don’t know since I haven’t really followed it in depth).
However, I do think it is important to remember that as Catholics, we affirm the true teaching, even dogma, that only men are able to be ordained to the priesthood. Various Popes throughout Catholic history have affirmed this. While Mormonism’s situation on the matter is more nuanced, especially since it has women performing ordinances for other women in the temple, and has a history of women performing healing/anointing blessings, among other things, Ms. Kelly, from what I have seen so far, does seem to be affirming and teaching things contrary to current Mormon teaching and practice, as well as what Catholics would see as the historical and true Christian practice on priesthood ordination. Having looked at the Ordain Women’s website, it seems as if this organization actively and explicitly advocates for the ordination of women to the priesthood. They say that it is “necessary”, and strongly criticize the practice of having a male-only priesthood.
Perhaps I’m rambling, but my point is that, while perhaps the situation is a little more complicated if we judge Mormonism on its own (and that perhaps there is a cause for LDS women to be ordained to the priesthood based on Mormonism’s own teachings, history, practices, etc), and maybe the LDS church did wrong things in approaching this (again, I don’t know, I haven’t looked into it too much), we must not forget that as Catholics, we know that the dogma of the true Church is that women cannot be validly ordained to the priesthood (as our own “ordain women”-esque Women Priests groups have attempted to do), and that to me, it does seem as if her support (founding?) of a group openly teaching ideas contrary to the current LDS church practices (clearly making the belief in a male priesthood out to be false, antiquated, etc), inviting others to join in support of it, and presenting “discussions” to disseminate to others to “faithfully agitate” for change in the LDS church would be cause for some sort of discipline (as opposed to merely discussing the historical and theological matter). This also reminds me of the temple recommend question, “Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” To me, this is a pretty clear example of that.
My two cents.
Within a Mormon context, it is appropriate to ask the question regarding the ordination of women. LDS history and doctrine are, in many ways, supportive of women ordination, even if the “priestesshood” does not have the same responsibilities as the priesthood. In the temple, women are washed and anointed to become queens and priestesses to their husbands, so it does fit into LDS theology. I think one of the problems with the OW movement is that they basically want the same priesthood as the men. It simply would never work that way in a Mormon context.I have only vaguely followed this matter. I’m not familiar with the proceedings and how things may or may not have been done in an appropriate manner, or may or may not have followed the rules set forth by the LDS church itself (again, I don’t know since I haven’t really followed it in depth).
However, I do think it is important to remember that as Catholics, we affirm the true teaching, even dogma, that only men are able to be ordained to the priesthood. Various Popes throughout Catholic history have affirmed this. While Mormonism’s situation on the matter is more nuanced, especially since it has women performing ordinances for other women in the temple, and has a history of women performing healing/anointing blessings, among other things, Ms. Kelly, from what I have seen so far, does seem to be affirming and teaching things contrary to current Mormon teaching and practice, as well as what Catholics would see as the historical and true Christian practice on priesthood ordination. Having looked at the Ordain Women’s website, it seems as if this organization actively and explicitly advocates for the ordination of women to the priesthood. They say that it is “necessary”, and strongly criticize the practice of having a male-only priesthood.
Perhaps I’m rambling, but my point is that, while perhaps the situation is a little more complicated if we judge Mormonism on its own (and that perhaps there is a cause for LDS women to be ordained to the priesthood based on Mormonism’s own teachings, history, practices, etc), and maybe the LDS church did wrong things in approaching this (again, I don’t know, I haven’t looked into it too much), we must not forget that as Catholics, we know that the dogma of the true Church is that women cannot be validly ordained to the priesthood (as our own “ordain women”-esque Women Priests groups have attempted to do), and that to me, it does seem as if her support (founding?) of a group openly teaching ideas contrary to the current LDS church practices (clearly making the belief in a male priesthood out to be false, antiquated, etc), inviting others to join in support of it, and presenting “discussions” to disseminate to others to “faithfully agitate” for change in the LDS church would be cause for some sort of discipline (as opposed to merely discussing the historical and theological matter). This also reminds me of the temple recommend question, “Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” To me, this is a pretty clear example of that.
My two cents.
I thought pulling her parents temple recommends was particularly egregious, why punish other faithful members simply because they love their child unconditionally. Truly despicable.
I think John won’t be ex’d, he’s a misguided man not an uppity woman. The LDS church teaches up front and drums it in subtly that a woman’s place is at home with no public voice, a St. Catherine is an impossibility in the LDS church. Kelly’s exing was a given the moment she was notified. Dehlin is a different story, the church has already made noise about “de-escalating” in his case.
We’ve seen this movie before. Kate Kelly is the modern Sonja Johnson.
Yup. Very trashy. She is very lucky to have parents who love her unconditionally. Many ex-Mormons do not have that luxury.
The LDS women don’t have any point. I don’t see any of the above as subjugation. From what I understand Kate Kelly never took a vow to obey her husband in the temple since that has been removed. Even if it wasn’t removed, the duty of the wife to obey the husband is just good New Testament doctrine. In LDS doctrine a husband can’t get to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom without a wife to pull through the veil. There would be obvious problems with a woman having more than one husband – how would you establish paternity in such a marriage? The idea the modern LDS Church is subjugating women is laughable. Honestly, there is no more subjugation of women in the modern LDS Church than there is in the Catholic Church. There are many church denominations which don’t allow women to have priesthood or ministerial duties. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Southern Baptist churches are just the ones that come to mind immediately. LDS women regularly speak and give prayers in LDS sacrament meetings every Sunday. That is more than they can do in the above churches.
I think if Mormon women started giving blessings, healing or otherwise, to their children and openly talked about it, they would get in trouble. I know of at least one woman who requested to stand in the circle to hold her new baby during its blessing. The father was going to pronounce the blessing. She just wanted to hold the baby. She and her husband were shut down by the bishop and they were forbidden to bless the baby at home which was their original intention so they could have other family members attend via Skype. The bishop made a huge stink about it and released the mother from her calling over it.
We can agree to disagree. I find the above VERY demeaning to women…as did my ex-wife when she was LDS…as does my ex-sister-in-law who IS still LDS…I suspect I would rely a female’s opinion on this topic than a males…but that is just me.
I agree with Texan and find this post to be demeaning to women and belittling their experiences in the LDS church. Here is a link to a post in another thread that gives more details on my experience of being a woman in the LDS church. I hope it helps you to better understand the plight of women in the LDS church, especially unmarried women.
Well if your god says so, I guess I would call that doctrine. Our Catholic God, Jesus, apparently did not see fit to call women to the priesthood. That seems to be good enough for Catholics. There is no example in any Mormon scripture of a woman holding the priesthood. The only reason we Catholics seem to think a woman can’t hold the priesthood is because Jesus was a man. That’s good enough for me, but I’m surprised it’s good enough for you. Here is what the LDS web site says about it:
If the priesthood issue was the ONLY issue involving demeaning women, I would be in total agreement with you, and likely would not posted on this thread. But for the reasons I listed, and others I did not, I believe it is a pattern of considering women lesser beings.
I think the biggest problem we may have in the future is some court deciding that not giving women the priesthood is somehow discriminatory and a reason to get rid of tax exempt status for a religion. In that case both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church would be in the same boat so I don’t think it is very wise to be supportive of a group in any church that is demanding so-called equal rights with regards to the priesthood. It is the same thing with gay marriage. We don’t know if a future U.S. court won’t go the Danish route and require churches to perform gay marriages. There will be future Kate Kellys who will try to demand the government uphold their rights as women for equality. It is a slippery slope, and I hate to even be seen as sympathetic to any woman in any church demanding priesthood based on the idea of equal rights.
WTF???