I guess I wanted to
jump in and begin with this question sort of general question of
excommunication – the LDS scholar and blogger Joanna brooks who’s been writing
about what’s been going on the past couple weeks mentioned she described
excommunication as a “19th century solution to a 21st
century problem” and we received this comment from a listener: “Excommunication
does absolutely nothing to heal or improve a member – it’s only use is as a
tool of power, shame, guilt and fear.” So I wanted to give you a sense to
respond to - first of all - how you’re thinking about the use of the word “excommunication”
and how you are thinking about that term.
Well, if I might begin first with an initial context that while we can discuss process, the church is not going to discuss private matters of faith between a specific church member and that member’s local leader and god. That decision process remains confidential and we’ll respect that. But, there is one point that I think that – well, two points actually that we need to underscore, the first one being: it is the desire of every church leader and member – our most heartfelt desire is for anyone who’s working through personal challenges with their faith or questions through a disciplinary process - that they turn to our savior for answers and fully participate with us. We fully expect them to be part of the congregation and to remain in the body of Christ. That is our ultimate desire. The second point is that this process is not expulsion and in some ways I hear the conversation framed as if excommunication is a foregone conclusion and in fact it is one of the options available to that local ecclesiastical leader. But it is at their discretion and so I’m uncomfortable when that is the conversation - where it focuses around the end consequence rather than the process of discipline…
That’s a good point but the word did come up in the letters to Kate Kelly, for example, I don’t want to get particular about her situation, but, she was startled by the word – the word came up to John Dehlin as well – as you say, as an option - but the fact that it is an option does raise the question about how it may work or how people are to work through it.
And I’m grateful for the chance today to talk about what that process looks like, so, first of all, discipline processes are not necessarily expulsion, it’s not exclusion. It’s, rather, an inclusion – it’s meant to be a loving invitation to return to the savior. And in this process…
But, wait, what do you mean it’s not exclusion? If you are excommunicated you are not allowed to pray in public, you’re not allowed to take the sacrament, you’re not allowed to participate in meetings. You are excluded from certain things.
There are restrictions around participation but participation remains essential and we fully expect and hope that person to be in the pew next Sunday. They have not been booted out of the congregation as some would say. And, in this process, the word discipline shares the same Latin root as the word “Disciple,” it’s meant to discern a true follower. Christ taught we need to be disciplined in thought word and deed and it’s how we fully engage as a true follower in the body of Christ. The process of discipline is never done hastily. It’s not done vindictively. It’s done in love and I have had personal accounts where they have shared with me how deeply profound this experience of discipline was. Where they didn’t really understand what the savior’s atonement meant to them or how to personally apply that redeeming and that enabling power in their lives until they personally experienced this. This can be a beautiful and meaningful turning point in someone’s life. It’s meant to be a loving invitation and it’s something that is done by that local leader in complete love and in fidelity with a desire to act in the savior’s behalf and in harmony with Heavenly Father’s will.
In a church statement referring to that idea that “discipline” shares that same Latin root with “disciple” it also says it should not be confused with punishment?
Exactly.
But why not say they’re being punished for stepping over the line too far? Yes, you’re inviting them to… but you’re trying to correct their course. There’s nothing wrong with saying that, right?
No, not at all. And that is precisely what it is meant to be is to correct their course so that they can align their behavior with the savior’s teachings.
Well, if I might begin first with an initial context that while we can discuss process, the church is not going to discuss private matters of faith between a specific church member and that member’s local leader and god. That decision process remains confidential and we’ll respect that. But, there is one point that I think that – well, two points actually that we need to underscore, the first one being: it is the desire of every church leader and member – our most heartfelt desire is for anyone who’s working through personal challenges with their faith or questions through a disciplinary process - that they turn to our savior for answers and fully participate with us. We fully expect them to be part of the congregation and to remain in the body of Christ. That is our ultimate desire. The second point is that this process is not expulsion and in some ways I hear the conversation framed as if excommunication is a foregone conclusion and in fact it is one of the options available to that local ecclesiastical leader. But it is at their discretion and so I’m uncomfortable when that is the conversation - where it focuses around the end consequence rather than the process of discipline…
That’s a good point but the word did come up in the letters to Kate Kelly, for example, I don’t want to get particular about her situation, but, she was startled by the word – the word came up to John Dehlin as well – as you say, as an option - but the fact that it is an option does raise the question about how it may work or how people are to work through it.
And I’m grateful for the chance today to talk about what that process looks like, so, first of all, discipline processes are not necessarily expulsion, it’s not exclusion. It’s, rather, an inclusion – it’s meant to be a loving invitation to return to the savior. And in this process…
But, wait, what do you mean it’s not exclusion? If you are excommunicated you are not allowed to pray in public, you’re not allowed to take the sacrament, you’re not allowed to participate in meetings. You are excluded from certain things.
There are restrictions around participation but participation remains essential and we fully expect and hope that person to be in the pew next Sunday. They have not been booted out of the congregation as some would say. And, in this process, the word discipline shares the same Latin root as the word “Disciple,” it’s meant to discern a true follower. Christ taught we need to be disciplined in thought word and deed and it’s how we fully engage as a true follower in the body of Christ. The process of discipline is never done hastily. It’s not done vindictively. It’s done in love and I have had personal accounts where they have shared with me how deeply profound this experience of discipline was. Where they didn’t really understand what the savior’s atonement meant to them or how to personally apply that redeeming and that enabling power in their lives until they personally experienced this. This can be a beautiful and meaningful turning point in someone’s life. It’s meant to be a loving invitation and it’s something that is done by that local leader in complete love and in fidelity with a desire to act in the savior’s behalf and in harmony with Heavenly Father’s will.
In a church statement referring to that idea that “discipline” shares that same Latin root with “disciple” it also says it should not be confused with punishment?
Exactly.
But why not say they’re being punished for stepping over the line too far? Yes, you’re inviting them to… but you’re trying to correct their course. There’s nothing wrong with saying that, right?
No, not at all. And that is precisely what it is meant to be is to correct their course so that they can align their behavior with the savior’s teachings.
One of the reasons
also given for church discipline according to a statement that you sent us was
to “protect the integrity of the church.” Give me a sense of what that means
exactly. And I know you don’t want to get particular about Kate Kelly or John
Dehlin but one of the aspects of what they did and what others have done who
have been disciplined is that they went… public, and I wanted to get you to
talk about that. Is that where they cross the line… is when… because we
mentioned this in our conversation with Kelly yesterday where I referenced a
letter from her Stake President who said, “It’s important to understand that
you’re not required to change your thinking or the questions you have in your
mind regarding the ordination of women. You can still say that but you need to
make that a private matter.” Is that where she crossed the line? Or is that
where members in general – if you want to be broad about it – cross the line?
Well, I can’t speculate as to what the conversation has been
between a specific church member and their ecclesiastical leader. It’s simply
not my place, not my role. I can speak generally in terms of apostasy we define
it as when our members turn away from the principles of the gospel or corrupt
principles of the gospel or make unauthorized changes in church organization or
priesthood ordinances. It’s one thing to make one’s view’s known. It’s quite
another to actively draw others away from clear doctrine. And it causes concern
because ultimately other’s lives may be dramatically influenced. I think
President Hinckley probably said it best. He said that he’s spoken before about
the importance of keeping church doctrine pure and seeing that it’s taught in
all the meetings and he conveyed that he worried about this, this is something
that weighs on his mind as a steward of the doctrine as the prophet of the
church. And he said, “Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large
and evil falsehoods.” So it is something to which we want to be sensitive, that
the doctrine, pure and clear and undefiled is the essence of the gospel. And it
is the responsibility of our leaders to insure it is kept in alignment with the
Father’s will.
One of the statements
you read I think goes along with what you are saying here which is sometimes –
and I’m quoting, here – “members actions contradict church doctrine” and as you
said, “lead other’s astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to
take themselves out of the church by actively teaching and publicly attempting
to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs.” So if someone had a
personal belief that God intends for women to also have the priesthood
authority… that’s what she’s doing. She’s trying to get the doctrine to budge,
to move to fit that feeling. That’s problematic, right?
It’s problematic when it becomes something you use as a
device to… to pull others away from the core fundamentals of the gospel. It
becomes problematic when you go beyond the assertion of your opinion and you
want to actively change the church and its fundamentals. If I might, Elder Oaks
was very clear in last April’s general conference when he stated
uncategorically [sic] that the leaders of the church don’t have authority to
change things, that at some point disrespectful dialogue becomes replaced by
repeated defiance and a denial to the truth that has been clearly espoused.
Where does it say in
Mormon doctrine that women can’t receive the priesthood? You say it’s doctrine.
Where is that?
The priesthood is defined as an office. It’s also defined as
an authority. And it’s defined as power.
Where? By whom?
Sometimes we use the terms interchangeably. We need to be
sensitive about that. Throughout the scriptures, you know, in the Doctrine and Covenants, um, in the
restored gospel we understand what are the different roles of the priesthood.
The oath and covenant of the priesthood appears there. It’s very specific.
But my question is very
specific – where in the Mormon scriptures – the Doctrine and Covenants, the
Book of Mormon, or any other scripture – does it say that a woman needs to be
excluded from the priesthood? That she has other roles, very important roles,
but that one is not for her…
I think you wouldn’t find many defined as “not as”
something. It’s proactive defined as something that it is. We know that the
priesthood is the power to act…
It’s proactively
defined as “this is a job for a man.” Women have other proper roles?
You see, the way in which you are using the definition of
the priesthood is in the offices of the priesthood. There is some discernment,
though in the application of that priesthood authority and the way that is
utilized. We – through our covenants, through our baptismal covenants, through
the temple covenants and ordinances in which we participate, women fully engage
in the priesthood in terms of accessing its power and blessings.
I understand that.
I understand that.
Now, as a woman, in no way have I ever been diminished in –
because I’m not a formal office holder in the priesthood. I have access to
every single blessing and power.
I get that and let’s
stipulate that. But that’s not the question.
The question is where does it say in Mormon doctrine that women cannot
hold the priesthood? There was an interchange…
It doesn’t.
Okay, because you say that… because for Kate Kelly or anyone who’s saying… who’s trying to urge church leaders to change doctrine… it has to say somewhere that they can’t…
Why? Why must it be prohibitive?
Why would Kate Kelly be in trouble now if it is not a doctrine? It is a doctrine, right? You are conceding that?
The doctrine is presently prescribed - speaking to the offices of the priesthood - specifies that it is for men. The offices are to be held by men for the service of Father in Heaven’s children on the earth. It doesn’t diminish the blessings and value given woman.
Okay, because you say that… because for Kate Kelly or anyone who’s saying… who’s trying to urge church leaders to change doctrine… it has to say somewhere that they can’t…
Why? Why must it be prohibitive?
Why would Kate Kelly be in trouble now if it is not a doctrine? It is a doctrine, right? You are conceding that?
The doctrine is presently prescribed - speaking to the offices of the priesthood - specifies that it is for men. The offices are to be held by men for the service of Father in Heaven’s children on the earth. It doesn’t diminish the blessings and value given woman.
There are people like
Kate Kelly who have seen in the past moments of policy/doctrinal change. The
doctrine of blacks and the priesthood is one that people bring up all the time
obviously. So, don’t you think it would be reasonable, to some degree, for
people like Kate Kelly or other’s to expect that if they push the issue a bit
there might be some room for change, because change happened in the past? What
do make of that?
There are a couple of points I’d like to make there. Yes this is a church of change. We have seen dynamic change over time. That change does not occur necessarily because someone has petitioned or lobbied for it. Demands of social change do not necessarily occur within the auspices of a church or a religion. The change occurs because God prescribes it to be so. So to lobby for that…
There are a couple of points I’d like to make there. Yes this is a church of change. We have seen dynamic change over time. That change does not occur necessarily because someone has petitioned or lobbied for it. Demands of social change do not necessarily occur within the auspices of a church or a religion. The change occurs because God prescribes it to be so. So to lobby for that…
So all those people
who were lobbying for the church to please change its position relating to
blacks and the priesthood – that wasn’t the thing that change it? It was God
said – at least, if I’m hearing you right – God said now’s the time, 1978?
Yes, because at that time we knew there were members of the
church who were supportive of that.
There were members of the church who were not. It was not a matter of
public opinion. One cannot use a mortal lens to assert what is best. One cannot
use a mortal lens to assess how the processes play out in the church. Only God
understands this. They are His designs and the bottom line is we trust Him. We
know that it is His church and He is in charge and in His do time He will
determine the timing and the content of any revelatory change.
But let me ask you this. There was an interview that Gordon B. Hinckley gave back in 1997. I’m sure you’re aware of it. He gave it to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. There was a man named David Ransom who asked is it possible that rules could change in the future regarding women and the priesthood like they did with blacks and President Hinckley said he could change them, yes, if he were to change them, that’s the only way it would happen - which is essentially what you are saying - yes, it could happen. If God said yes, do it. And the interviewer said, “So you’d have to get a revelation?” And president Hinckley said, “Yes.” But then he said this, he said, “There’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied.” Now isn’t it fair to say there are some women that are kind of agitating for it? At least, according to President Hinckley, if some are raising the question as opposed to being disciplined for raising that question, shouldn’t they be engaged in a conversation about it, whether they get it or not?
But let me ask you this. There was an interview that Gordon B. Hinckley gave back in 1997. I’m sure you’re aware of it. He gave it to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. There was a man named David Ransom who asked is it possible that rules could change in the future regarding women and the priesthood like they did with blacks and President Hinckley said he could change them, yes, if he were to change them, that’s the only way it would happen - which is essentially what you are saying - yes, it could happen. If God said yes, do it. And the interviewer said, “So you’d have to get a revelation?” And president Hinckley said, “Yes.” But then he said this, he said, “There’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied.” Now isn’t it fair to say there are some women that are kind of agitating for it? At least, according to President Hinckley, if some are raising the question as opposed to being disciplined for raising that question, shouldn’t they be engaged in a conversation about it, whether they get it or not?
Well, of course. The conversation is not the problem. It is
not what is being said. It is how it is being said that becomes problematic. It
is really the spirit of one’s intent and one’s heart that is the challenge and
our best example, truly, is our Savior. Numerous times he exemplified placing
the Father’s will before his own and when one’s actions are no longer about
“thy will,” when they are more about “my will,” we must really, honestly assess
where we are. Are saying our way is better than God’s way? Do we trust God or are
we attempting in some way to council god? And it’s really a matter of intent.
It’s a matter of method and conversation. The conversation is always welcome.
I wanted to ask you a
question about – we had a few comments about this and I wanted to read them
related to the idea of – Kate Kelly said in our conversation yesterday that –
she had asked five times, I think to meet with the public relations department
and five times was denied. I don’t even know if they responded. She wants to
have that conversation. She said she wanted to have that conversation. But she
was turned down. Why?
I know I can’t really speak to that – it may predate my time
– I’ve been on board an entire six months now so I’m not really familiar with
any specific requests from her or any of that.
But that wouldn’t be
an unreasonable request, right – for the Ordain
Women organization to
say all right, let me meet with you and talk about this?
What I can tell you is that right now is such an exciting time in the church. We are 15 million members strong, 30 thousand congregations in 185 countries. It is a time of tremendous growth and that kind of growth necessarily generates a conversation around what is culture and what is tradition versus what is inspiration and revelation and doctrine. And we’re having these great conversations right now, especially around the role of women at various levels. We have in our department as have other leaders within the church had conversations around women and their concerns or their beliefs or desires regarding some of the cultural traditions that are happening in the church. We are talking about those. They are wonderful conversations. Quite frankly, I would not be in church right now if I didn’t feel that this was a really wonderful, exciting time to be part of this organization.
What I can tell you is that right now is such an exciting time in the church. We are 15 million members strong, 30 thousand congregations in 185 countries. It is a time of tremendous growth and that kind of growth necessarily generates a conversation around what is culture and what is tradition versus what is inspiration and revelation and doctrine. And we’re having these great conversations right now, especially around the role of women at various levels. We have in our department as have other leaders within the church had conversations around women and their concerns or their beliefs or desires regarding some of the cultural traditions that are happening in the church. We are talking about those. They are wonderful conversations. Quite frankly, I would not be in church right now if I didn’t feel that this was a really wonderful, exciting time to be part of this organization.
But Kate Kelly’s group
didn’t get a meeting because their proposal crosses the line. Do you think
that’s fair?
When you use a grammatical ultimatum – “Ordain Women.”
“Ordain Women” –
that’s the problem?
That is a doctrinal change. It presents some problems.
So change the name.
Change your approach. Change your attitude and then you can come on in and talk
to us?
It’s not for me to say, but I can tell you that there are a
number of other feminists and activists with whom we’ve had conversations –
really meaningful, really important, really valuable conversations.
So the tone’s
important? The way you present it?
Very much so.
I wanted to ask you
about this question. This is a big one obviously, and the question is, who’s
directing all this? Who’s directing – the church statement is very clear, it
says, “Local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and
prevent other members from being mislead. Decisions are made by local leaders
and not directed or coordinated by church headquarters.” So, the letter Kate Kelly
received, the letter John Dehlin received – “letters”, I should say – were not
directed by church leaders at the headquarters in Salt Lake City?
No. The determination around actions, process, timing – those are all made at the discretion of the local congregant leader – the bishop or the stake president.
No. The determination around actions, process, timing – those are all made at the discretion of the local congregant leader – the bishop or the stake president.
And they haven’t heard
from headquarters before they sent those letters related to disciplinary
measures. It was completely – you’re not saying that they…?
Let me give you a little context around it because what I’m
not saying is that there is no information provided from church headquarters.
The information that they receive is standard leadership training that all
leaders throughout the world receive as to process or how to conduct their
stewardship. It is just more of a technical direction and guidance. But, the
individual determinations are made by that bishop or stake president. I can
tell you one of theses instances where there was the assertion from one of the
congregants that they were unable to attend the specified time, the question
did come back to church headquarters, could we make any adjustment? Can we
adjust timing? What are my options there? And they were told that they could do
it by phone and they were even offered a video conferencing capacity that would
be secure and confidential as well. That flexibility is within protocol. As far
as those kind of process and protocol questions – that there is some kind of
conversation back and forth, necessarily so – this is a highly sensitive
matter…
Of course. But you
know what’s out there. You know that out there people are saying this is – the
church is…
A conspiracy?
Not a conspiracy. It’s
a purge. That you’ve got people – they’re pushing a little – Kate Kelly is
pushing too hard – John Dehlin’s pushing – they’re not the only ones – there
are a number of them who in the Mormon blogosphere – you may or may not be
familiar with it – that are raising, you know, questions that are often critical…
More familiar these days than I used to be.
I’ll bet. I’ll bet.
But that the church is like, all right we’re down. We’ve had enough of this. We
need to throw a brushback pitch. They’re crowding the plate. We need to get
them back in line. And that’s the sense of it. And on the church website there’s
a reference to a leadership training conference. Elder M. Russell Ballard and two
other general authorities attended. This is a month ago or so. They went to
northern Virginia. And others have talked about that in that meeting – and
we’re talking about Elder M. Russell Ballard, quorum of the twelve apostles, so
it’s a significant – and he actually there while having this training session
with bishops and stake presidents about the concerns that some of the brethren
have and in specific he mentioned Ordain Women, in specific he mentioned - Kate
Kelly’s name was referenced as well in response to a question that came
apparently from one of them. Now isn't it reasonable to expect that a stake
president that is sitting there in the congregation – or a bishop wouldn’t take
that to heart and then a couple of weeks later she gets this letter. I mean,
isn’t that reasonable?
You’re connecting dots that aren’t there. But it is part of
a standard protocol…
Okay how are they not
there?
Because you are making an assumption that I simply can’t
speak to. You know I don’t know what’s in the mind of that local leader. You’re
asking me to speculate on his intention and I won’t do that.
Good, then I won’t ask
you to do that. Did M. Russell Ballard go and conduct a training session in
Virginia in May?
I’d have to check his calendar. I assume you have good facts
there. So, you know I’m not going to deny that we do these trainings that are
sensitive and we’re very much aware of their relevance. It would be naïve to
assume otherwise.
Right.
We are leaving it up to the discretion of that leader to act
in the Savior’s behalf and to conduct themselves as prompted by the spirit in
how they apply the process. There is in no way an implied wink wink – now’s the
time, take action. I have been in more than one meeting where a member of the quorum
of the twelve has explicitly reiterated to both staff and other leaders present
that those at church headquarters are in no way to impact outcomes or to influence the processes
inappropriately. There is actually a high degree of sensitivity around that and
very much a hands-off approach. Let us support you but we will not tell you
what to do. It’s a really delicate act isn’t it? It’s a difficult walk at
times.
It is, but it raises –
the second question is this, why not – why wouldn’t church headquarters want to
have a say in the process that has the potential to affect the public image of
the church – which it is – why wouldn’t leaders from headquarters want to
assist a lay leader who may have the ecclesiastical authority to act but maybe
not the temporal skill set to deal with something so high-profile and so
explosive as this?
They do provide ecumenical support and assistance but it
comes back to your other question about priesthood and offices of the
priesthood and it’s very specific that it is within the purview of that bishop
or that stake president - and only their purview - to be that judge in Israel
and make that determination.
So – I’m not going to
even say their name – if somebody is excommunicated - if it goes that far - or
disfellowshipped - or whatever - because there are a range of possibilities,
here. That doesn’t have to be signed off on by headquarters at church? That is
completely within the purview and stewardship of local leadership?
It is and, moreover, it’s in the purview of the individuals
themselves. Let’s make sure we’re clear on one thing, here. The individual
chooses how this process progresses. There is in no way that a letter is a
complete surprise to an individual. They have been in months-long conversations
with their local leader. They know that this process takes time. It is never
hurried. It is never rushed. It is intentional and it is done in a loving way.
It is never an ambush. It’s not vindictive and to assert otherwise is
misleading. These people in any of these processes – disciplinary process –
they have choices. It is their choice to remain in the congregation. It is
their choice to remain in the body of Christ. It is there choice whether or not
the listen to the promptings of the spirit and align their behavior with the
Savior’s will.
But the choice is then
to keep your mouth shut about this particular thing or stop being so public
about this particular thing? That is something they have to do? They have to
make the choice?
I can’t say that that’s the criteria. That’s between them
and their bishop and God.
[Break]
Is there an internal discussion going on that you’re aware of among the leaders of the LDS church – the first presidency – the governing first presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles related concern about, you know, the Mormon blogosphere – the questions raised about history, you know, is there some concern going on among the leadership of the church – are they worried about these kinds of things?
Is there an internal discussion going on that you’re aware of among the leaders of the LDS church – the first presidency – the governing first presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles related concern about, you know, the Mormon blogosphere – the questions raised about history, you know, is there some concern going on among the leadership of the church – are they worried about these kinds of things?
Not that I’m aware of. In fact, quite the contrary. I think
they recognize the internet and the information available as an amazing tool, a
powerful tool…
They’re not worried
about it?
Let me finish.
Sorry go ahead.
It’s not truthful to assert that they’ve – I know in some
blogs they’ve said they’ve been discouraged form blogging. Church leaders are
not asking people not to blog and they’re not attacking the rights of honest
explorers of faith to have these conversations in the so0-called bloggernacle.
In fact it was Elder Ballard in a speech in Hawaii a few years ago who
encouraged members to share their faith on the internet. So, there’s actually
been and encouragement. I think it’s really – it goes back to that question of
it’s not what you’re saying, it’s how you’re saying it. It can be a really
raucous place, the bloggernacle. It can be a place where identities are foggy
and assertions are loose. And we just ask that everyone engage with civility,
with honesty, with openness – having questions is the very foundation of the
restored gospel. Joseph took questions into the grove. It is what drives one’s
testimony – to ask the right questions. So exploring question, having doubts,
discussing issues is all completely not just important but welcome and invited
and expected. But let’s do it in the right tone and with the right spirit.
I wanted to ask you
about one of those assertions that’s out there in the so-called bloggernacle
and these this is the idea that there’s a power vacuum within Mormonism going
on right now and that there is – because of that – the public affairs
department of the church is stepping in and sort of pushing leadership to act,
to sort of squelch some of these more progressive voices like Kate Kelly’s,
like John Dehlin’s and others’. Michael Otterson – I guess he’s your boss,
right? He’s over public affairs. His name came up yesterday in our conversation
with Kate Kelly and she talks about this – and I want to play of clip of it
because I want you to respond to this question that’s certainly out there –
this idea that a lot of this disciplinary action or this move to squelch what
might be dissent is coming from your department in the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. Here’s Kate Kelly:
I
think that in every institution – especially large institutions – there’s a
layer between the people in the general membership and the leaders at the top
and in our case that happens to be the public affairs department of the church
led by Michael Otterson and so far they’ve been the only ones to respond. So, I
think I’m very justified in saying that they’re the ones between us and the
church leaders and their responses have gotten increasingly negative,
increasingly aggressive and, again, that comes back to the fact that the most
threatening part about Ordain Women is that we are reverent, that we are
respectful, that we are faithful and that we will continue to be.
How do you respond to
that? Have you heard that assertion? Clearly that can’t be new to you - this
idea that this is being directed not necessarily from within but maybe from,
you know, church bureaucrats on the outside of the inner circle?
Well, first let me be clear that public affairs does nothing
in isolation or insulation from our church leaders. We act at their explicit
direction. In fact, we have a number of them who chair a committee, who sit in
council with us regularly and are well aware of our efforts. They’re well aware
I’m here, today. And they’re well aware of what the message would be going
forward. We do nothing in isolation. To underestimate the understanding of our
leaders is a mistake because I – their hearts are in the right place and this
is about making sure that those who participate in the church as members - as
followers of the Savior - have undiluted and accurate information coming from
church leaders. We work very hard to make sure it’s available in thousands of
web pages and many sources so public affairs work in the church is an
interesting dynamic, but it is not one that is separate and apart from
leadership. It is actually a first presidency assignment and we work in concert
with them very closely.
Here’s an email
question that came from Christine who writes, “Elder Whitney Clayton is reported
to have said” – and this is a reference to a story reported by KUTV news and I
think the context for it is that meeting we were discussing earlier in Virginia
– that Elder Clayton accompanied Elder Ballard and that he publicly made this
particular pronouncement about Ordain Women - that website and organization
we’ve been talking about – Christine says, “Elder Clayton is reported to have
said that, ‘Publicly advocating for women’s ordination is an act of apostasy.’”
And then she writes, “Because we live in a culture where the lines between public
and private seem to be more fuzzy all the time, it seems more important to know
what working definition of ‘public’ members can use in expressing their
opinions about church doctrine. Is a Facebook
page public?” she writes, “or is a blog post? A profile on the Ordain Women
website – is that public? How and where may a member express doubts and
opinions in good faith?” It seems like what you were saying before I do it
wherever you want, but use the right tone, use the right questions?
Yeah, absolutely. It is really is a personal question. I
love what one blogger wrote to us recently when he said, “When I sit down, I am
prayerfully contemplative and intentional about what I write. I recognize words
have power. I want to bear testimony pure and clear. I want to share exactly
what Elder Ballard characterized as my testimony on the internet in the way
that reaches so many.” I take that stewardship seriously.
But what if you
believe – as some women do – that it’s time for the church to give women the
priesthood? Where do you express that?
There are many avenues to express that and discuss that. No one’s questioning our ability to discuss it in a congregation, in a Sunday school class, in relief society class…
There are many avenues to express that and discuss that. No one’s questioning our ability to discuss it in a congregation, in a Sunday school class, in relief society class…
In a congregation a
woman can stand up say that?
She can certainly have the conversation. In my Relief
Society we can. I love what Sister Burton just said this very last Sunday, she
talked about women…
Now remind us who
Sister Burton is?
Sister Burton is the Relief Society general president. She’s
a wonderful example. She travels the world. She meets thousands of women and
has personal conversations with them. And she says in this really personal way,
women shoulder burdens. Women – we come from so many backgrounds, but we have
to be each other’s safe space. It has to be through one and other that we can
have these conversations.
It’s okay for a woman
in a relief society meeting to stand up and say – you know within the proper
context of what the lesson might be, respectfully – “Hey Sisters, let’s talk
about the possibility that it’s time now for church leaders, like they did with
the priesthood and blacks, to change that. I mean, there were lessons from
history where women reportedly gave blessings and we did have this power and it
sort of went away from us and let’s talk about that.” The church is cool with
that?
The conversation is open. We’ve had a similar conversation
in my relief society in Kaysville ,
Utah . We had a similar
conversation about gay marriage in my relief society. My daughter in Palo Alto just had a very
interesting conversation this very last Sunday. We have those conversations. It
is a safe place.
So it was just the
declarative, ordain women, that got Kate Kelly into trouble?
You know, I’m not going to speculate where the line was. You
seem to ask me repeated questions about, where is this line? And I get it,
Doug, I know what you’re trying to drive at. It is not for me to say. It is not
for me to say. It is between Kate and her bishop and Heavenly Father to
determine where that line is. Because I don’t know her heart and her bishop
knows better than anyone else. And that is his stewardship.
But she’s got a
website that’s raising that question. So she should do it in a relief society
meeting but she can’t do it on a website?
You know, when you start to recruit people to participate in
something that is contrary…
But aren’t you doing
that in a meeting when you’re raising these kind of questions?
A conversation is not recruitment. A conversation, a
dialogue, asking questions – that vastly different than an organized effort
with six discussions.
Okay, so I’m not sure
if you want to respond to the particulars of Elder Clayton’s reported comment
that this, in effect, is apostasy. Can you say that it is? Associating with
Ordain Women dot com is apostasy? Can you answer that?
I’m not sure that I can answer that question. It really, it
depends on where that person is in their heart. What they’ve explicitly done.
So for some it would
be okay to go on that website and participate?
What are you categorizing as their participation? To read
through their material? To listen to their discussions or to, more
specifically, post…
To create a profile. Let’s just say that. To create a profile. Someone who goes on Ordain Women and creates a profile. Is that an act of apostasy?
To create a profile. Let’s just say that. To create a profile. Someone who goes on Ordain Women and creates a profile. Is that an act of apostasy?
You know, I’m not really prepared to answer the question.
It’s not my determination.
But why then did Kate
Kelly’s parents get their temple recommends removed for supporting their daughter
and/or supporting their daughter on that website?
You know, I can’t answer that question because that’s
between them and their bishops.
So you can’t answer
broadly – the question being…
Isn’t that the beauty of all of this?
But isn’t it confusing?
But isn’t it confusing?
That it can’t be some general, broad brush, here - that it
is individually applied.
But there’s either a
rule or there isn’t.
Either the Savior knows you or he doesn’t.
So you have to pray –
receive some kind of spiritual
revelation as to whether or not you should
participate on this website of this woman who may or may not be
excommunicated, right?
It would be my hope
that anyone expressing an opinion in a public forum would be prayerful about
that opinion. And that they would pursue inspiration. Where they’ve crossed the
line as in the advocacy of a position contrary to church doctrine. We’ve
clearly defined what apostasy is. We’ve clearly defined that it is seeking
something contrary and then recruiting others. It’s one thing for me to say
here’s how I feel. It’s another thing to say you should too.
[Break]
So I wanted to get a
sense – I wanted to play a clip, an excerpt from a speech given by President
Deiter Uchtdorf who is in the governing first presidency of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints and he addresses this broader question about those
who have doubts. I think it’s some thing that you’ve mentioned today. But I
think that it’s something you often here referenced by those of us who are
raising these kind of questions about whether there is a place for them within
the church itself. Here, this is from an October, 2013 general conference
address, President Deiter F. Uchtdorf:
To
those who have separated themselves from the church I say, my dear friends,
there’s yet a place for you here. Come and add your talents, gifts and energies
to ours. We will all become better as a result. Some might ask, but what about
my doubts? It is natural to have questions. The acorn of honest inquiry has
often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few
members of the church who at one time or another have not wrestled with serious
or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the church is to nurture and
cultivate the seed of faith, even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and
uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things that are not seen but which are true.
So I wanted to get to
that. This question – this was, I think, for a lot of people within the
bloggernacle, as you put it, this was an important speech. It mentioned that
there could be a place within Mormonism, which is often defined as just a place,
at least some people see it as either, look, you’re orthodox in your belief and
your perspective, or you’re not. And if you’re not well don’t bother. There are
other places you could go. And I think what people were hearing there from
President Uchtdorf was that, no, there is a place here. Could you comment on
that and your sense of that?
Well, the savior’s gospel is one of inclusion and he so beautifully points out that this religion was founded on asking really hard questions and not having all the answers. And those questions are so fundamental to learning. I love what he said, there, about faith because within one’s earnest questions lay the seeds of faith. And the bottom line is this gospel of our savior – this restored latter-day gospel – has the answers to so very many questions: Who am I and why am I here and where am I going? And we acknowledge there are some questions only God can answer and we acknowledge that everyone is on their own individual path, progressing in their own individual way. And we have to do a better job of being patient and loving and Christ-like with one another as we each progress on that path. To judge is not our place. To make a determination about another person’s place on that path is not our place. Occasionally, it’s within our stewardship, but generally speaking it is ours only to encourage and to love and support and strengthen. It’s why we participate in this community of Christ in these congregations. We find hope and strength and peace. When I affiliate with my neighbors on a Sunday or throughout the week I find strength in watching my neighbor battle bone cancer. I find strength in watching another neighbor wrestle with a child with addictive issues. I find peace in the spirit I find there. I find renewal in the spirit I find there. That is what the gospel has to offer us and being on that path is what counts. Going in the right direction is what counts. And understanding what the Savior does for us. Really believing Jesus Christ, not just believing in him, but believing his words, that he will indeed restore us and make us whole. Believing him is what makes the difference. And if we do that – if we understand the atonement makes all well, at the end of the day wherever that person is on their path, the atonement is going to rectify the situation. We’re all going to be – return as brothers and sisters to God’s presence again.
Well, the savior’s gospel is one of inclusion and he so beautifully points out that this religion was founded on asking really hard questions and not having all the answers. And those questions are so fundamental to learning. I love what he said, there, about faith because within one’s earnest questions lay the seeds of faith. And the bottom line is this gospel of our savior – this restored latter-day gospel – has the answers to so very many questions: Who am I and why am I here and where am I going? And we acknowledge there are some questions only God can answer and we acknowledge that everyone is on their own individual path, progressing in their own individual way. And we have to do a better job of being patient and loving and Christ-like with one another as we each progress on that path. To judge is not our place. To make a determination about another person’s place on that path is not our place. Occasionally, it’s within our stewardship, but generally speaking it is ours only to encourage and to love and support and strengthen. It’s why we participate in this community of Christ in these congregations. We find hope and strength and peace. When I affiliate with my neighbors on a Sunday or throughout the week I find strength in watching my neighbor battle bone cancer. I find strength in watching another neighbor wrestle with a child with addictive issues. I find peace in the spirit I find there. I find renewal in the spirit I find there. That is what the gospel has to offer us and being on that path is what counts. Going in the right direction is what counts. And understanding what the Savior does for us. Really believing Jesus Christ, not just believing in him, but believing his words, that he will indeed restore us and make us whole. Believing him is what makes the difference. And if we do that – if we understand the atonement makes all well, at the end of the day wherever that person is on their path, the atonement is going to rectify the situation. We’re all going to be – return as brothers and sisters to God’s presence again.
I want to ask you – so
you’ve been in this now job six months?
Yes.
So you don’t have to share any, sort of, private conversations that you’re having there within the department of public affairs, but what does the church figure, or how do you assess the public relations image of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now? There are a lot of controversial issues that you’re facing – lots of questions being raised and I know some are probably thinking about the questions of church history that are being raised – that people have access to that raise questions about the story that you so often hear in Sunday school – questions obviously about the LGBT community, about gay marriage, same-sex marriage – obviously those questions are being raised. Now you’re in the spotlight, again, related to prominent activists who have been threatened by their local leaders, whether or not that had anything to do with church headquarters – which you said it didn’t – but you’re in the spotlight again. How are you assessing the public image of the church – the perception? What do you think people think? When you were brought in to do this job…
So you don’t have to share any, sort of, private conversations that you’re having there within the department of public affairs, but what does the church figure, or how do you assess the public relations image of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now? There are a lot of controversial issues that you’re facing – lots of questions being raised and I know some are probably thinking about the questions of church history that are being raised – that people have access to that raise questions about the story that you so often hear in Sunday school – questions obviously about the LGBT community, about gay marriage, same-sex marriage – obviously those questions are being raised. Now you’re in the spotlight, again, related to prominent activists who have been threatened by their local leaders, whether or not that had anything to do with church headquarters – which you said it didn’t – but you’re in the spotlight again. How are you assessing the public image of the church – the perception? What do you think people think? When you were brought in to do this job…
Hold on I need to write this all down.
Yeah, write it down – it’s like a six part question, but the question’s pretty basic, given all of that context – lots of controversy, lots of questions – what do you figure the image of the LDS church is these days, more broadly? Not the message of the church, what’s the image? What do people think of the church? The good and the bad?
It’s such and interesting question, Doug, and it’s one that I have contemplated for the last few months, more in depth, of course. It is an amazing time to be on this planet with the advantages of electronic, immediate communication. It makes sharing the truth in a vibrant, real way more possible than ever, more personal than ever and that is so exciting to share the truth. It also means there is more cacophony. There is just more chaos as back-noise. And we have to help filter some of that out. It means it’s more incumbent upon us as ever to be good consumers of information and discern truth. So it’s a fascinating time. I think the church is pragmatic in understanding we don’t exist in isolation. We are a player in terms of - the world is a community. We understand that our numbers make a difference in local communities. We make a difference in neighborhoods.
But are you seen as stodgy? Are you too conservative as lead by old men who are “out of touch?”
Yeah, write it down – it’s like a six part question, but the question’s pretty basic, given all of that context – lots of controversy, lots of questions – what do you figure the image of the LDS church is these days, more broadly? Not the message of the church, what’s the image? What do people think of the church? The good and the bad?
It’s such and interesting question, Doug, and it’s one that I have contemplated for the last few months, more in depth, of course. It is an amazing time to be on this planet with the advantages of electronic, immediate communication. It makes sharing the truth in a vibrant, real way more possible than ever, more personal than ever and that is so exciting to share the truth. It also means there is more cacophony. There is just more chaos as back-noise. And we have to help filter some of that out. It means it’s more incumbent upon us as ever to be good consumers of information and discern truth. So it’s a fascinating time. I think the church is pragmatic in understanding we don’t exist in isolation. We are a player in terms of - the world is a community. We understand that our numbers make a difference in local communities. We make a difference in neighborhoods.
But are you seen as stodgy? Are you too conservative as lead by old men who are “out of touch?”
There are old stereotypes that need to be redefined because
they are simply not true. I think that they’re based on assumptions and the
value of this tremendous amount of information is that stereotypes can be
broken down and people can see that these fifteen men who sit in council really
love us and care about us and agonize over the future of this planet and God’s
children.
So you’re going to
hate this last question because I’m going to mention Kate Kelly again and you
don’t want to get specific about her.
You are a focused man.
Well here’s the thing,
I mean, she was on the program yesterday and she expressed this: Aside from
this one issue which is, it is that issue – this incredible devotion to her
church. It’s the thing that she says is so special about her. It’s that she is
a Mormon. That’s my thing, I’m a Mormon. That’s the thing. She’s defined by
that.
Yeah, I get that.
Wouldn’t it be a shame
if this impasse that she has, if this question she keeps raising were to cancel
all that out and she were to be – have to leave the church. Wouldn’t that be a
shame?
It truly would be. It’s her choice.
Ally Isom thank you very
much for joining us.