Re: Anonymous...
Posted: February 10th, 2015, 3:25 pm
He was excommunicated today
Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
That's twisted.Muerte Rosa wrote:Yes him and Kate Kelly are having a party as we speak with a doll that bares a strong resemblance to president Monson.
Kate Kelly was publicly teaching doctrines against the Church and getting others to do the same. She was counseled and warned several times to stop or face the consequences. There's no better reason to ex someone who knowingly defies in open opposition to the church, knowing the expected consequences and refuses to repent.FSM wrote:Exing people seems so heavy handed. IV never heard of Mr. John Dehlin. But I have Ms Kelly. I feel so sorry for her. If I were her bishop she would not have been exed. This action does terrible psychological dammage to the victim. There must me a better way of doing this. If anonymous does anything this will make them look like the aggressors. The church will then benefit from it.
I truly wish I could keep up with to see how she's doing. I wonder if she still goes to church? Where is the acts of love, patience, kindness, and longsuffering in exing someone? There is no room for it. Exing her hurt her and other people drawing more people her to her cause.marktheshark wrote:Kate Kelly was publicly teaching doctrines against the Church and getting others to do the same. She was counseled and warned several times to stop or face the consequences. There's no better reason to ex someone who knowingly defies in open opposition to the church, knowing the expected consequences and refuses to repent.FSM wrote:Exing people seems so heavy handed. IV never heard of Mr. John Dehlin. But I have Ms Kelly. I feel so sorry for her. If I were her bishop she would not have been exed. This action does terrible psychological dammage to the victim. There must me a better way of doing this. If anonymous does anything this will make them look like the aggressors. The church will then benefit from it.
Have you read her latest statement? It's filled with hate and bigotry towards members of the church. She has shown her true colors.
Dehlin flat out said he thinks the doctrines of the Church are false and that it's a fraud. Why keep him on the records?
If you were in a position to make the decision, the ONLY decision that could be justly made is to excommunicate them.
"This action does terrible psychological damage"
In the case of Ms. Kelly, she knew full well the consequence and she is the one who chose to do this, and she forced her excommunication upon her own head. How is that psychologically damaging? If it is, it's her own fault. She was asked to repent and she strongly refused to stop openly preaching false doctrine and gathering followers to believe in her false teachings.
In both cases, I wish they would have softened their hearts and sought the power of Christ and the atonement to get back on the right path. It's always sad to see someone lose their faith and take others with them.
I'll answer just for curiosity sake.Obrien wrote:Marktheshark: out of curiosity, what is the ONE doctrine that would cause you to the most heartburn if the 15 changed the church's current position?
There was plenty of patience and long-suffering and she received kindness and love from the people who tried to get her to see reason in her error. It was there, I'm sure of it. They didn't just call her in one day and kick her out. Months and months were given for her to stop publicly preaching falsehoods. She boldly declined. She knew she would be kicked out and didn't care, despite her local leaders best efforts to get her to stay faithful to the Lord's revealed word.FSM wrote:I truly wish I could keep up with to see how she's doing. I wonder if she still goes to church? Where is the acts of love, patience, kindness, and longsuffering in exing someone? There is no room for it. Exing her hurt her and other people drawing more people her to her cause.marktheshark wrote:Kate Kelly was publicly teaching doctrines against the Church and getting others to do the same. She was counseled and warned several times to stop or face the consequences. There's no better reason to ex someone who knowingly defies in open opposition to the church, knowing the expected consequences and refuses to repent.FSM wrote:Exing people seems so heavy handed. IV never heard of Mr. John Dehlin. But I have Ms Kelly. I feel so sorry for her. If I were her bishop she would not have been exed. This action does terrible psychological dammage to the victim. There must me a better way of doing this. If anonymous does anything this will make them look like the aggressors. The church will then benefit from it.
Have you read her latest statement? It's filled with hate and bigotry towards members of the church. She has shown her true colors.
Dehlin flat out said he thinks the doctrines of the Church are false and that it's a fraud. Why keep him on the records?
If you were in a position to make the decision, the ONLY decision that could be justly made is to excommunicate them.
"This action does terrible psychological damage"
In the case of Ms. Kelly, she knew full well the consequence and she is the one who chose to do this, and she forced her excommunication upon her own head. How is that psychologically damaging? If it is, it's her own fault. She was asked to repent and she strongly refused to stop openly preaching false doctrine and gathering followers to believe in her false teachings.
In both cases, I wish they would have softened their hearts and sought the power of Christ and the atonement to get back on the right path. It's always sad to see someone lose their faith and take others with them.
These points still intrigue me.Daryl wrote:That's twisted.Muerte Rosa wrote:Yes him and Kate Kelly are having a party as we speak with a doll that bares a strong resemblance to president Monson.
What about these comments?
- Anonymous is aware of the internal emails of various Church Office Building employees and the benign hilarity of the inside jokes found therein.
- We are apprised of the reasons behind Sheri Dew’s as-yet-unmarried status.
- The precise dollar amounts allocated to the various ranks of leadership, such as, say, the alarming amount spent under the umbrella of ‘landscaping’ on behalf of a mission president in Rochester, New York between the years 2007-2011.
marktheshark wrote:I'll answer just for curiosity sake. Thanks for the answer, but honestly...a week after the question? How am I supposed to remember where I was going with the original question? I'm middle aged, for pete's sake.Obrien wrote:Marktheshark: out of curiosity, what is the ONE doctrine that would cause you to the most heartburn if the 15 changed the church's current position?
Gay Sealings - I don't see this as a doctrine, unless you mean ALLOWING gay sealings would be a heart burner for you. How would you feel about allowing gay weddings in church, or gay weddings being done by a bishop in his role as an ecclesiastical leader? Would allowing gay sealings cause you to leave the church? Would it cause you to speak out and decry the change?
But, I'm not even remotely worried that this will ever happen. It's a 0% probability. Disagree, and given historical precedence the odds are on my side.
If women's ordination became practice in the future, it wouldn't bother me. Women, in the temple, are anointed to become priestesses in the Celestial Kingdom. It's there, but this is a telestial world and as members of Christ's Church, we play by his rules. I will not support or advocate for anything that is not revealed through the proper authoritative channel. I would have zero issue with this, either.
ok I see what you mean. Sure she had her chance. But have you ever had people turn your back on and total given up on you? I have, and I can since it in others. And feel sorry for her. But I do understand your point.Muerte Rosa wrote:Do you know she was holding classes teaching her beliefs? Even advertising them FSM?. She is a civil rights attorney who is trying to force the church to do HER will by using "legal logic". She is more concerned with laws of the land and how she can get gain using them rather than doing the will of the will of the Lord.
This is a sincere question. What would be an appropriate way for lay members to request a prophets revelation (or the Lord's will) concerning any matter.Muerte Rosa wrote: She is a civil rights attorney who is trying to force the church to do HER will by using "legal logic".
what kind of parents gives up on their child. I'm sorry.Muerte Rosa wrote:Yep i have. My parents.
The odds are absolutely not on your side. You think the Lord would allow that to happen in His temples? That's the difference. If this was another corrupt sect of religion without proper authority and a value placed on worldly opinions then you may be correct, but this I'd not the case.Obrien wrote:marktheshark wrote:I'll answer just for curiosity sake. Thanks for the answer, but honestly...a week after the question? How am I supposed to remember where I was going with the original question? I'm middle aged, for pete's sake.Obrien wrote:Marktheshark: out of curiosity, what is the ONE doctrine that would cause you to the most heartburn if the 15 changed the church's current position?
Gay Sealings - I don't see this as a doctrine, unless you mean ALLOWING gay sealings would be a heart burner for you. How would you feel about allowing gay weddings in church, or gay weddings being done by a bishop in his role as an ecclesiastical leader? Would allowing gay sealings cause you to leave the church? Would it cause you to speak out and decry the change?
But, I'm not even remotely worried that this will ever happen. It's a 0% probability. Disagree, and given historical precedence the odds are on my side.
If women's ordination became practice in the future, it wouldn't bother me. Women, in the temple, are anointed to become priestesses in the Celestial Kingdom. It's there, but this is a telestial world and as members of Christ's Church, we play by his rules. I will not support or advocate for anything that is not revealed through the proper authoritative channel. I would have zero issue with this, either.
Yep.natasha wrote:I would imagine what would happen is that they would just revoke all Bishops licenses to marry as well as the same licenses held by sealers in the temple....leaving it for sealings only.
No one "gave up" on Kelly. Priesthood leaders counseled with, pray for, and worked with as much as she would allow. But ultimately, priesthood leaders must protect the body of the Church as well from those who would destroy from within. It was not her "questions" that were the issue; it was refusal to accept that the answer was "no" and this was the Savior's answer. If I as a parent have an adult child (and I do) who wants to participate in behavior within my home that destroys both them and siblings still at home, then do I "give up" by insisting that the behavior cease or they not come to my home? That is Kelly's position. She has refused to stop the behavior that would harm her siblings in the Church.FSM wrote:ok I see what you mean. Sure she had her chance. But have you ever had people turn your back on and total given up on you? I have, and I can since it in others. And feel sorry for her. But I do understand your point.Muerte Rosa wrote:Do you know she was holding classes teaching her beliefs? Even advertising them FSM?. She is a civil rights attorney who is trying to force the church to do HER will by using "legal logic". She is more concerned with laws of the land and how she can get gain using them rather than doing the will of the will of the Lord.