Most impressively, Jenny Hatch is wise to the true agenda of the Mormon feminist movement:
I believe this group of activist women are an organized cabal of professionally trained leftist agitators who have been tasked with doing a well publicized stunt in order to be excommunicated so they can then then whine to the media for the next twenty years about how evil and patriarchal the church is, having put their Feminist beliefs on the line and paid the seemingly ultimate sacrifice. I just wonder how much money they have been paid to do it…
I have quietly observed Joanna Brooks well timed book rollout, her many blog posts, media appearances, book tours, and I even attended her lecture on the campus of SUU [Southern Utah University] last fall. She is a statist progressive who has no clear understanding of the basic doctrines of the church.
She is someone who believes her agenda of ordaining women to the Priesthood will “shape” the future of the Faith I love.
And I am here to tell you, “No, it will not”.
In her post today [October 7th] she made it clear they are just getting started as a group.
She hits the nail on the head; the fact that Kate Kelly is a "human rights lawyer" from Washington DC is no coincidence. Feminism is divisive, corrosive, inherently anti-male, blaming men for all the sins of the universe, past, present, and future. In fact, one non-Mormon preacher, John Hagee, once suggested that feminism could be considered witchcraft, defining witchcraft as the unrighteous control over someone through manipulation or intimidation for the purposes of domination (scroll down to Hagee on Feminism). Feminism actually cultivates and enshrines female victimhood by encouraging vulnerable women to blame men and patriarchy for their problems instead of taking their share of responsibility for problem-solving. And although some "sensitive" men may go into "Uncle Tim" mode and identify with feminists as a reflection of Stockholm Syndrome, most men and are put off by feminism because they want to remain men and don't think they should have to walk on eggshells in their own homes or in church.
However, it might be a mistake to condemn all 150 of the activists who showed up at Temple Square on October 5th as apostates. Not all are equally culpable; many have been misled and have become deluded. It is only the leadership of this group that could really be considered as "sinning against the light". On The Millennial Star, LDS Philosopher articulates a good distinction between heresy and apostasy. He suggests that while heresy is limited to thought alone, apostasy takes place when the "heretic" promotes that heresy publicly. To wit:
In short, if you have a different opinion, if you disbelieve certain core Church teachings, you are fully welcome to worship with us. It’s ok to have questions and doubts. That doesn’t make you a bad Mormon. We want you with us. But when you start to publish opinions that directly contradict the established teachings of the Church, and earnestly try to persuade others to believe such an opinion, you are engaging in apostasy. For example, if you believe that same-sex activity is not sinful, you might be a heretic, and that’s ok. We can accept you. We will try and teach you, but we will embrace you with open arms and fellowship nonetheless. If you publish a book about it, or write a blog post about it, in which you try to convince others that the established teachings of the Apostles on sexuality are wrong and misguided, you are not longer just a heretic — you are an apostate.
According to the 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions Volume 1 (not officially available online), it is not heresy that's actionable, but apostasy. According to paragraph 6.7.3, apostasy is one of the transgressions mandating a disciplinary council. Here's how the Church defines it:
Apostasy. As used here, apostasy is used to refer to members who:
(1). Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church and its leaders.
(2). Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
(3). Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
(4). Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.
Unlike other transgressions like murder, rape, and incest, which mandate excommunication as the only outcome, the CHI does not mandate excommunication as the only outcome for an apostasy trial. Thus a stake court may consider the full range of actions from formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication.
While Kate Kelly is certainly not guilty of items (2), (3), and (4), she comes close to the line on Item 1. Even after she was told in advance by the Church that women would not be admitted to the Priesthood Session, she and her cohorts chose to go to Temple Square and seek admission. This is more than just apostasy; this constitutes open rebellion against the Church leadership, and even if there's no track record of Kate Kelly doing this "repeatedly", it certainly warrants a response by her local Church leadership in Washington DC. At the very least, her bishop and/or stake president should call her in and ask her to explain her actions. In fact, some of the Ordain Women activists have already been called in by their bishops to explain their participation, although Kelly herself claims her local leadership has been supportive. Whether it would escalate into a full-blown disciplinary council would depend upon her response. If Kate Kelly's act of open rebellion goes unexamined, this could encourage more rebellion. Denver Snuffer's so-called "apostasy" pales by comparison.
Feminism is growing more and more incompatible with Mormonism with each passing day.
2 comments:
You can't be serious. Is this a joke?
The big thing I have to say is this: There's nothing against reading or listening to priesthood session as a woman, my wife even ask me about the messages I heard there, I do likewise in cheerfully asking about how Relief Society was for her. The whole problem with fringe feminism is that it doesn't encourage a healthy, working relationship between the sexes. It also engages in the wrong kind of intellectual reasoning, exaggerating the good about one, and the negative about the other. I know full well how even feminists would feel if I applied an equivalent standard of judgement to them, it's essentially a mirror image of the shameful disrespect that society had for a long time the other way around.
I think there's always that hard part for many in the church to accept, for some it's the principle of forgiveness (me) for others, it's the principles of living under government (I liked your use of the word diaspora, BTW), as opposed to being paranoid about government, for others, it's about accepting that you can co-exist with nonmembers and be a faithful member (I did it for 27 years and counting with an atheist father, still do). I don't know, I guess we're all Jack and Janes in our own ways, trying to iron out and figure where our harmony with the Lord needs mending.
Post a Comment