Tuesday, 24 June 2014

On Kate Kelly and Ordain Women.

“...you have stopped teachings and actions that undermine the Church, its leaders, and the doctrine of the priesthood.”

“persuade them to support your particular interpretation of Church doctrine”

Those are two statements found on the excommunication letter sent to Kate Kelly.  There seems to me to be a huge difference between undermining Church doctrine and trying to get other to support one’s understanding of the doctrine.  I’m not just talking about the motivation of an individual, but what it ultimately comes down to is the doctrine.  Are the Ordain Women trying to change how a doctrine is interpreted, or are they trying to change the doctrine.  I would think that from their perspective they are trying to do the former.  They love the Church, they love the Gospel and the Doctrine of Christ, but they want to see that doctrine played out differently.  If that is all, who can fault them?  If however they desire to change doctrine, I can see why that is problematic. 

What I’m trying to say, though I’m not sure I’m articulating myself very clearly, is that I think their motives matter less than what the doctrine is.  Their motives matter, and I think their motives are good, but if trying to get people to support their interpretation of doctrine is actually undermining the doctrine, I get why that is problematic.  So, what is the doctrine?  What is the doctrine stated so clearly that will make it obvious if Kelly’s interpretation is an acceptable one of many, or if it undermining the Church's doctrine.

Jesus, as recorded in 3 Nephi 11, makes it seem pretty clear that there should be no disputes among us about doctrine.  Then, the doctrine is clearly laid out:  Believe, Repent, Baptism, Reception of the Holy Ghost, and then build upon Jesus’ rock so that the gates of hell shall not prevail – endure to the end.  To me, that’s the doctrine.  That’s it, and I certainly don’t hear the Ordain Women speaking out against any of those things.

Should Kelly have listened to the warnings she was given?  I don’t know, maybe.  I get the point made by a different Kelly over here, I’m not surprised, but I’m still sad.  I still think there are many questions left unanswered.

Sunday, 15 June 2014

Chocolate Ice Cream

This is a story from when I was three.  It is accurate according to my memory which may not be accurate at all.
It was a bright sunny day.  My sisters and I and two of our friends were playing house in my back yard.  I had to get the “food” which was leaves from our May Day tree.  Against the fence ran a bench.  I stood upon it, leaned against the fence for balance and reached up to pluck the leaves. 
An angry swarm of wasps came rushing out from the other side of the fence.  Apparently they didn’t like having their nest disturbed.  I panicked, screamed swung my arms wildly. 
“Stay calm,” my nanny Gail yelled as she came rushing out of the house.  “Don’t swat them, it will only aggravate them.”
My arms couldn’t stay still, but my feet couldn’t move.  Gail picked me up off the bench and rushed me into the house.  There we assessed the damage.
I was three years old and had been bitten three times: once on my arm, once on my lip and once on my pinkie.
Gail lectured me about how one ought to behave around wasps as she held me and comforted me.
“Did you swat one away,” she asked.  “Is that why it bit your pinkie?”
“No,” I lied.

I was afraid to go back outside.  The following night after dark my father and my sister took a spray and went to kill the wasps.  It was past my bed time, but my other sister and I sat nervously by the window.  We ate chocolate ice cream and feared for their lives, at least I did.  I was terrified that they’d get bitten just as I had.  The fear made me feel sick to the stomach.  Yet, they went willingly, to ensure my safety, and for that they were my heroes.  When they came back unharmed I was filled with relief.  Only then could I go to bed in peace.