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.

No comments:

Post a Comment