Mormon Excommunicated for advocating female priesthood.

[idav]

So excommunication isn't so much for disagreeing on doctrine as it is for disagreeing on doctrine AND being annoying?

That is a very good question. I was kinda curious what broken law or sin that lady did.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh... is that all that needs to be figured out?

That's it! Simple, huh?

Your last post suggested (to me, anyhow) that you think God has been silent on the issue. I gather that these women who feel called to the priesthood believe strongly that God has told them that women should be allowed to be priests. I'm sure that others feel that God is telling them that women shouldn't be allowed.

God is generally silent unless we go to Him with our questions. In my personal opinion... the reason Blacks were denied the priesthood for so long is that the Church's leadership was not ready to go to God in prayer and say, "God, what would you have us do?" and then listen for the answer and be willing to act on it. Once they were to the point where they had decided that they were willing to make a change, He told them what He would have told them years before, had they only been ready to act on His answer.

Now... all we have to do is figure out a way to discern what God is actually saying. As a side benefit, if we do this for this issue, we'll also resolve all religious disputes ever.

Yeah, that's the only problem.

Wait - I thought you said that the prohibition on women priests wasn't doctrine either. Did I misunderstand your position?

I did say that, and I can understand why that last paragraph was confusing. Let me try again...

From a doctrinal standpoint, the priesthood is required in order for a person to baptize another person, confirm that person as a member of the Church, give someone the Gift of the Holy Ghost, perform a marriage, preside over what would be best known by mainstream Christians as "communion," perform a healing blessing and annointing, head confessions of serious sins, etc. These things are what other churches would call sacraments. We call them (collectively) "ordinances."

From a doctrinal standpoint, the priesthood is not required in order for a person to do most other things in the Church (offer prayers, speak to the congregation from the pulpit, teach classes, etc.).

In order for something to be considered "official doctrine," it has to be stated in one of our "Standard Works," (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price). None of these sources actually says that the priesthood should be withheld from women, although there are hints (like the one you mentioned about bishops), that this should be the case.

Currently, there are policies in place requiring that a person be a priesthood holder in order to do certain things (be on certain governing committees, etc.). If some of these policies were to be changed, women would have more decision-making authority in the Church, even if they could not perform priesthood ordinances.

 

[Katzpur]

So excommunication isn't so much for disagreeing on doctrine as it is for disagreeing on doctrine AND being annoying?

LOL! That's kind of an odd way of putting it, but I think that's probably a pretty accurate way of putting it.

 

[Sees]

What does the excommunication actually accomplish?

 

[Katzpur]

That is a very good question. I was kinda curious what broken law or sin that lady did.

She was excommunicated for the "sin" of "apostasy" (which she denies having committed). Apostasy would mean that she is trying to urge rebellion from within the Church by presenting beliefs that supposedly contradict those the Church's leadership are teaching. She was essentially saying that the Church's leadership is wrong in denying the priesthood to women and encouraging a sort of grass-roots uprising against the leadership for its stance. Basically, Mormons believe their leaders to have been chosen by God and He has called them to be His spokesmen. In matters of doctrine, this is an accurate statement. In matters of policy, it's really not. I'm not saying that they can't or aren't guided as a rule by the Holy Ghost when setting policies, but this is clearly not the case 100% of the time. They are human beings and are subject to human failings. They can and do make mistakes -- in terms of establishing policies. The question is, is the ban against women holding the priesthood a matter of doctrine (which can only be changed by God revealing His will to all 15 men in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) or a matter of policy (which can by changed by these same 15 men as they see fit).

 

[Katzpur]

What does the excommunication actually accomplish?

Are you thinking in terms of how it impacts the excommunicated person or how it benefits the Church?

 

[Sees]

Are you thinking in terms of how it impacts the excommunicated person or how it benefits the Church?

Both, and not looking for ammo just curious

 

[Shiranui117]

That gets a bit tricky if you think that the ban on female priests is a human invention but that the church itself is still God's appointed church.

Then this person needs to consider why there had never been a female priest in the history of Christianity before the late 1800's or early 1900's. If the ban on female priests was a human invention, then it would have developed later, and we would have at least some examples of women priests from ancient times.

I find it strange that one person of faith would be so dismissive of the importance another person places on their faith that they'd say "if you don't like it, then leave it."

I was more referring to those outside of a given faith who criticize it--people on the outside looking in. I guess my phrasing could have been clearer in that regard.

... yet.

They gave in on other major issues in 1890 and in 1978. I'd put even money on whether they'll eventually give in on this issue.

A fair point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then this person needs to consider why there had never been a female priest in the history of Christianity before the late 1800's or early 1900's. If the ban on female priests was a human invention, then it would have developed later, and we would have at least some examples of women priests from ancient times.

You're talking about cultures where women were generally relegated to second-class status anyhow. Why should we assume that the second-class status in these religions was somehow divinely inspired and not a product of the cultures they were immersed in?

 

[idav]

You're talking about cultures where women were generally relegated to second-class status anyhow. Why should we assume that the second-class status in these religions was somehow divinely inspired and not a product of the cultures they were immersed in?

That is a very fair point and Katspur mentioned that Jesus would not have given into culture. Nevertheless I feel that Jesus could have just as easily appointed females as apostles or as priests, he had no qualms with women and his mother is honored as well. It seems to me it is a product of culture and not divinely inspired just like the gay issue which Jesus never got into either but pressed the mmore important matters. If it was that much an issue he would have mentioned something. would have had to. He had to scold the aposltels a couple times regarding women issues. No surprise there. Paul made that same idiot blunder saying women should be silent in church. My 2 cents for what its worth.

 

[Katzpur]

Both, and not looking for ammo just curious

It all depends upon the individual situation. Regardless of the sin that ultimately results in an excommunication (possibilities being murder, rape, child abuse, adultery, a felony of any kind, or -- as in the case of Kate Kelly -- apostasy), excommunication would be seen at least partly as a disciplinary measure, e.g. you behave inappropriately, you pay the consequences. If the person being excommunicated is remorseful concerning his behavior, the excommunication would be considered the means by which he could begin the process of repentance. The hope would be that he could eventually be rebaptized. Again, it's saying that we are accountable for our actions and certain serious offenses require some sort of restitution or punishment. Probably most people who are excommunicated (and there aren't all that many actually) are pretty angry by the time it gets to that point, and want nothing to do with the Church in the future. I know of some, though, who continue to attend worship services (where they are generally welcomed). They can no longer speak or pray before the congregation or receive "the Sacrament" (i.e. communion, the Lord's Supper). If they were previously considered worthy to go to the Temple (which is not the same thing as a regular church service, since it requires a higher level of commitment), that privilege is taken away from them. With respect to how it benefits the Church as a whole, I suppose that it's primarily that membership in the Church is considered a blessing that comes with the responsibility to at least try to keep God's commandments. A murderer or a rapist, for instance, is clearly not someone who is very committed to living a Christlike life. In a situation like Kate Kelly's, I suspect that the Church leadership figures they are sending a message that it doesn't pay to go on the offensive in trying to bring about policy change. Clearly, that message has been made known all over the U.S. if not in many other parts of the world by now. I really do have mixed feelings about it (the Kate Kelly case). I tend to think that it's probably going to do the Church more harm than it is good.

 

[Shiranui117]

You're talking about cultures where women were generally relegated to second-class status anyhow. Why should we assume that the second-class status in these religions was somehow divinely inspired and not a product of the cultures they were immersed in?

Because Christianity already gave women honors and privileges that the surrounding pagan culture had obstinately refused. It wouldn't have been the first time that Christianity was more progressive than paganism if women were priests.

 

[Sees]

It all depends upon the individual situation. Regardless of the sin that ultimately results in an excommunication (possibilities being murder, rape, child abuse, adultery, a felony of any kind, or -- as in the case of Kate Kelly -- apostasy), excommunication would be seen at least partly as a disciplinary measure, e.g. you behave inappropriately, you pay the consequences. If the person being excommunicated is remorseful concerning his behavior, the excommunication would be considered the means by which he could begin the process of repentance. The hope would be that he could eventually be rebaptized. Again, it's saying that we are accountable for our actions and certain serious offenses require some sort of restitution or punishment. Probably most people who are excommunicated (and there aren't all that many actually) are pretty angry by the time it gets to that point, and want nothing to do with the Church in the future. I know of some, though, who continue to attend worship services (where they are generally welcomed). They can no longer speak or pray before the congregation or receive "the Sacrament" (i.e. communion, the Lord's Supper). If they were previously considered worthy to go to the Temple (which is not the same thing as a regular church service, since it requires a higher level of comitment), that privilege is taken away from them. With respect to how it benefits the Church as a whole, I suppose that it's primarily that membership in the Church is considered a blessing that comes with the responsibility to at least try to keep God's commandments. A murderer or a rapist, for instance, is clearly not someone who is very committed to living a Christlike life. In a situation like Kate Kelly's, I suspect that the Church leadership figures they are sending a message that it doesn't pay to go on the offensive in trying to bring about policy change. Clearly, that message has been made known all over the U.S. if not in many other parts of the world by now. I really do have mixed feelings about it (the Kate Kelly case). I tend to think that it's probably going to do the Church more harm than it is good.

Thanks for the information. I can imagine aside from heinous crimes it would tend to be a tricky situation.

 

[Mycroft]

I think any charge of misogynism against churches who hold to the ancient and traditional Christian teaching of an all-male priesthood is severely misguided, and rather ignorant. If you don't like it, then leave it, but don't act like the only reason we don't allow women to be priests is because we hate women and think of them as second-class humans. That's not a reason at all.

This Eastern Orthodox Christian is taking the LDS side here. Good on the Mormons for not giving in to the whims of modern society.

I will always rally against the backward, outdated and, frankly, wrong ideas of religions who refuse to observe any sort of equality and cause harm to other people. I live in the 21st century, a world of progressive ideas and means. Why should the world continue to entertain your backward ideas?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because Christianity already gave women honors and privileges that the surrounding pagan culture had obstinately refused.

Case in point: the honours and privileges bestowed on Hypatia by the Christian mob.

It wouldn't have been the first time that Christianity was more progressive than paganism if women were priests.

"Christianity was more progressive than paganism" does not equal "Christianity was not discriminatory".

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for the information. I can imagine aside from heinous crimes it would tend to be a tricky situation.

It is, and it's almost always controversial. I mentioned in a recent post that excommunicated members who still wish to attend church services are generally made to feel welcome by most members of the congregation. Here's an article that was published a few days ago in the Salt Lake Tribune (generally considered to be Salt Lake City's more left-leaning/independent as opposed to Mormon newspaper): After 20 years, this excommunicated Mormon still attends her LDS ward. I thought it was pretty interesting.