Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[eddie]

And her parents TRs were revoked because of that support, so blessings have been denied.

 

Well they made the decision to support their daughter and follow her agenda rather than follow the teachings of the church.

 

I love my children dearly, but when they are in the wrong, I won't support their actions.  I will always love them, but love doesn't mean accepting everything they do.

 

For example, when I was younger, my son did something wrong.  I made him tell the people he had wronged, own up to his actions, and see the consequences.   I didn't rationalize his behavior due to his young age, nor the fact that I had done the same thing when I was a kid.  My parents also did the same to me when I was a child.

 

I actually have a fairly close relative that is a part of this OW movement.  I know her and her parents.  Her parents love her, but they do not support her actions.  I will not get into detail about the situation, but loving and supporting are not the same thing.  Her parents still hold recommends, and they publicly state they love their daughter.

Edited June 26, 2014 by eddie

[gtaggart]

Its directly because of her actions. They don't live in a vacuum.  Was not one of the reasons given because she had erroded the faith of others?

 

No, whatever action the church took against them would be because of their own actions, their choosing to follow her lead or for whatever other reason was behind the action against them--we don't know exactly what happened or why after all.

Edited June 26, 2014 by gtaggart

[eddie]

And her parents TRs were revoked because of that support, so blessings have been denied.

 

One more thing, after the death of Joseph Smith, several people followed various leaders, though the majority went with BY.  William Law chose to start his own church after his wife became upset at a disciplinary council that was to be held for her.  She told her husband some things that Joseph Smith claimed never happened, and used that to invoke his emotions.  Eventually William Law went to Wisconsin with his own church, which did not last long.  (It died out by the end of the 19th century.)  So he placed the word of his wife over blessings in the church.  (I don't intend to get into the story of Joseph Smith's death, just showing the parallels.)

 

That is what KK's parents are doing, they are following the teachings of their daughter rather than those of the church.   History has not been overly favorable to those groups, most have died out and none have the full blessings of the gospel.

Edited June 26, 2014 by eddie

[Zakuska]

One more thing, after the death of Joseph Smith, several people followed various leaders, though the majority went with BY.  William Law chose to start his own church after his wife became upset at a disciplinary council that was to be held for her.  She told her husband some things that Joseph Smith claimed never happened, and used that to invoke his emotions.  Eventually William Law went to Wisconsin with his own church, which did not last long.  (It died out by the end of the 19th century.)  So he placed the word of his wife over blessings in the church.  (I don't intend to get into the story of Joseph Smith's death, just showing the parallels.)

 

That is what KK's parents are doing, they are following the teachings of their daughter rather than those of the church.   History has not been overly favorable to those groups, most have died out and none have the blessing of the gospel.

 

I think we could draw a lot more parallels of this situation to Israel wandering in the wilderness. Where group after group broke off  and drew away followers and were swallowed up in the bowels of the earth by divine action. Even Miriam was excommunicated from the tribe for 7 days.

 

But let us take a lesson from this as well.  Even Moses the head of the church himself who received revelation directly from the mouth of God was wrong on some things and was bared from entering the promised land because of his actions at the waters of Meribah. (Numbers 20:12) Even Divinely Guided and inspired men full of the Holy Ghost can make mistakes.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Zakuska

[why me]

The church made a correct verdict because they had no other choice. Kate backed them into a corner by declaring that women must have the priesthood to gain full equality. It was over the top and then she attempted to preach her gospel to other members by introducing 'missionary discussions'. What other choice did the church have in her case? If they allowed her to do what she wished to do, the church would lose control of the narrative and it would have sent the signal that anything now goes in the lds church. Anarchy would naturally follow as members form pressure groups to put forward their own desires and worse yet, several direct action mormon groups would spring up to pressure the church about the social action they wish the church to take.

 

She had to be excommunicated to bring some sort of normalcy back to the church.

[ERayR]

I have had some great priesthood leaders over the years, and I have had some terrible ones.

 

Generally, the great ones were humble, serving, loving, and if you asked them, they would rather be serving in the primary.

 

The terrible ones were loud, demanding, they "ran for office", self righteous, and believed they were better than certain callings.

 

Which of the two best describes Kate Kelly?

 

I don't know where I fit in this.  I am certainly not running for office and I really don't care to teach primary.  In fact I would rather be sitting in class making a nuisance of myself.

[ERayR]

And her parents TRs were revoked because of that support, so blessings have been denied.

 

For their own actions, not for hers.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think we could draw a lot more parallels of this situation to Israel wandering in the wilderness. Where group after group broke off  and drew away followers and were swallowed up in the bowels of the earth by divine action. Even Miriam was excommunicated from the tribe for 7 days.

 

But let us take a lesson from this as well.  Even Moses the head of the church himself who received revelation directly from the mouth of God was wrong on some things and was bared from entering the promised land because of his actions at the waters of Meribah. (Numbers 20:12) Even Divinely Guided and inspired men full of the Holy Ghost can make mistakes.

In everything you've cited, the person was held accountability for the use of his/her own agency, not for what others, such as offspring did.

 

I have never know of the Church to hold a parent accountable for the sins of his/her children. The very notion strikes me as bizarre.

[Abulafia]

Was the alleged disciplinary action concerning KK's mother because she supported her daughter, or because she went a-media-whoring like her daughter?

I've just finished watching a Channel 4 hour long programme here in the UK, called Meet the Mormons which followed an Elder as he enters the MTC. We are told the church invited the Channel to film. Would you then say that the church went a-media-whoring?

Edited June 26, 2014 by Abulafia

[eddie]

I think we could draw a lot more parallels of this situation to Israel wandering in the wilderness. Where group after group broke off  and drew away followers and were swallowed up in the bowels of the earth by divine action. Even Miriam was excommunicated from the tribe for 7 days.

 

But let us take a lesson from this as well.  Even Moses the head of the church himself who received revelation directly from the mouth of God was wrong on some things and was bared from entering the promised land because of his actions at the waters of Meribah. (Numbers 20:12) Even Divinely Guided and inspired men full of the Holy Ghost can make mistakes.

 

So how is the Church is wrong in all of this? Just as I don't claim  to be infallible with my son (I have made the same mistakes I now punish him for) I am still his dad, and still responsible for his well being.

 

Look there are cases where bishops have to discipline their own children.   Joseph Smith ex'ed some of his own family in his time.  We can love our kids always, but we do have to decide when to follow them.

Edited June 26, 2014 by eddie

[Zakuska]

For their own actions, not for hers.

 

See response to Scott below.

 

In everything you've cited, the person was held accountability for the use of his/her own agency, not for what others, such as offspring did.

 

I have never know of the Church to hold a parent accountable for the sins of his/her children. The very notion strikes me as bizarre.

 

Scott,

I know two great examples in scripture where parents are held or will be held directly responsible for the sins of their children.

 

D&C 68

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

 

Jacob 3:10

10 Wherefore, ye shall remember your children, how that ye have grieved their hearts because of the example that ye have set before them; and also, remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day.

 

 

So how is the Church is wrong in all of this? Just as I don't claim  to be infallible with my son (I have made the same mistakes I now punish him for) I am still his dad, and still responsible for his well being.

 

Look there are cases where bishops have to discipline their own children.   Joseph Smith ex'ed some of his own family in his time.  We can love our kids always, but we do have to decide when to follow them.

 

 

I never said the Church is in the wrong.  Earlier in the thread people were making the point that Disciplinary Councils are supposed to be guided by revelation.  I was just making the counter point that mistakes can happen even when men, even the head of the church are under divine guidance. I'm just asking them to remember that great caution is warranted.

 

Guys I'm on limited and cant post again until 6:50

[Duncan]

I've just finished watching a Channel 4 hour long programme here in the UK, called Meet the Mormons which followed an Elder as he enters the MTC. We are told the church invited the Channel to film. Would you then say that the church went a-media-whoring?

 

I am gobsmacked! I have wanted to see this show all day but it isn't "currently available in your area" what gives?! We, Canadians have fought with the British, our fellow members of the Commonwealth, for loads of wars, had to deal with Coronation Street and East Enders like Brits deal with people from Yorkshire for how many years now and we can't even watch this show!!! Jiminy Christmas!!!! The line I see on the Channel 4 is "Mormon leaders in America have permitted the church in the UK to open its doors to cameras." so, to me that sounds like they were approached by the station? I dunno!

Edited June 27, 2014 by Duncan

[AZ in GA]

I don't know where I fit in this.  I am certainly not running for office and I really don't care to teach primary.  In fact I would rather be sitting in class making a nuisance of myself.

Not running for office is good enough for me. I understand not preferring primary, but I know many many people who feel they are too good for primary. Big difference.

[Scott Lloyd]

See response to Scott below.

Scott,

I know two great examples in scripture where parents are held or will be held directly responsible for the sins of their children.

D&C 68

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

Jacob 3:10

10 Wherefore, ye shall remember your children, how that ye have grieved their hearts because of the example that ye have set before them; and also, remember that ye may, because of your filthiness, bring your children unto destruction, and their sins be heaped upon your heads at the last day.

I never said the Church is in the wrong. Earlier in the thread people were making the point that Disciplinary Councils are supposed to be guided by revelation. I was just making the counter point that mistakes can happen even when men, even the head of the church are under divine guidance. I'm just asking them to remember that great caution is warranted.

Guys I'm on limited and cant post again until 6:50

You have misinterpreted both of these passages.

Parents are responsible to teach their children the doctrine of faith, repentance and baptism -- in short, the fundamental principles of the gospel. Once parents have done that, if the children of their own volition drift off into wickedness, they alone are accountable for their own actions, and parents are absolved of guilt.

If you really believe one person can be accountable for the sins of another, you err and do not understand the Second Article of Faith (unless it be through parental failure to teach the children, as explained above).

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Abulafia]

I am gobsmacked! I have wanted to see this show all day but it isn't "currently available in your area" what gives?! We, Canadians have fought with the British, our fellow members of the Commonwealth, for loads of wars, had to deal with Coronation Street and East Enders like Brits deal with people from Yorkshire for how many years now and we can't even watch this show!!! Jiminy Christmas!!!! The line I see on the Channel 4 is "Mormon leaders in America have permitted the church in the UK to open its doors to cameras." so, to me that sounds like they were approached by the station? I dunno!

The narrator implied that they were invited to film, but she may have been referring fo a specific shot and location, so maybe you are right. I just felt USU's suggestions were quite offensive and wanted to make a point.

I watched the programme whilst simultaneously discussing it with my tbm friends on fb. It did show sister missionaries (incidentally), but it very much concentrated on the male obligation to serve.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Abulafia

[Duncan]

The narrator implied that they were invited to film, but she may have been referring fo a specific shot and location, so maybe you are right. I just felt USU's suggestions were quite offensive and wanted to make a point.

I watched the programme whilst simultaneously discussing it with my tbm friends on fb. It did show sister missionaries (incidentally), but it very much concentrated on the male obligation to serve.

 

i watched a 6 min. video on vimeo, what I found weird was a Church PR guy was hanging around the whole time! like do we trust the young missionary or don't we? I dunno, maybe have the lady do the documentary and then screen it with the pr guy. Also UK dances look WAY better than the ones here!

[Robert F. Smith]

I think there is a tension there.   Yes, authority in any organisation helps for smooth running and order, but surely the leaders are not God, it isn't a perfect system. Thinking that leaders are God's representatives and will always enact his will perfectly on earth, can be so dangerous.  I've seen the dangers up close.   We must use our own conscience in these matters surely?  

My SP was against my attending college.  I knew he was wrong.  

 

Yes, indeed, and I am so glad that you didn't listen to that Stake President's opinion.

[Abulafia]

i watched a 6 min. video on vimeo, what I found weird was a Church PR guy was hanging around the whole time! like do we trust the young missionary or don't we? I dunno, maybe have the lady do the documentary and then screen it with the pr guy. Also UK dances look WAY better than the ones here!

Ah, the dark haired guy used to live in my old ward, and I knew him as a new convert. He is ex police.

The YA scene looks more thriving than in my day. Everyone questioned the suggestion that there were dances every week!

Elder Field came across really well. I wanted to give him a hug. Apparently he is doing really well and is now ZL and has adjusted well.

[Abulafia]

Yes, indeed, and I am so glad that you didn't listen to that Stake President's opinion.

Me too. I'd have missed out on a wonderful career teaching kids, and I never did find a marriage partner in the church. (Not regretting that, given my lack of belief in many of the specific truth claims).

[Pahoran]

I think there is a tension there.   Yes, authority in any organisation helps for smooth running and order, but surely the leaders are not God, it isn't a perfect system. Thinking that leaders are God's representatives and will always enact his will perfectly on earth, can be so dangerous.  I've seen the dangers up close.   We must use our own conscience in these matters surely?  

My SP was against my attending college.  I knew he was wrong.

Indeed. Uniquely so.

I've never heard of a Church leader counselling against further education.

I find it almost incredible.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Abulafia]

Indeed. Uniquely so.I've never heard of a Church leader counselling against further education.I find it almost incredible.Regards,Pahoran

Indeed. It would have been 1983. Perhaps you could take it up with him, I can send you his name.

[why me]

Me too. I'd have missed out on a wonderful career teaching kids, and I never did find a marriage partner in the church. (Not regretting that, given my lack of belief in many of the specific truth claims).

I have always considered stake presidents and bishops men first who may give advice but who don't necessarily need to be listened to. I think that this is a healthy way to look at them because they have their own issues and opinions about life etc. And I have this feeling that many members look at it this way. Of course, for the stake or for the ward it may be different but with a one on one, I tend to see it as I just explained because it is more of a personal opinion of life choices.

 

It would be different if they were telling me to stop my protest against the church or face the consequences. This is more for the protection of the saints in the ward and stake and not necessarily directed on something personal like a career or marriage choice. . .

[Alan]

The narrator implied that they were invited to film, but she may have been referring fo a specific shot and location, so maybe you are right. I just felt USU's suggestions were quite offensive and wanted to make a point.

I watched the programme whilst simultaneously discussing it with my tbm friends on fb. It did show sister missionaries (incidentally), but it very much concentrated on the male obligation to serve.

 

It also showed, on three seperate occasions, both male and female temple garments. In one picture it had them modelled.

I cannot see the church requesting or approving of that.

I thought the programme was a bit of a non-event really. The interviewer got on my nerves quite a bit. She insisted at one stage that she should be able to have a private meeting with Elder Field (ie. without his companion present) Private??? What's private about filming it and transmitting it to millions of people!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

I found this blog post via a link from Daniel Peterson's blog.

 

The point has probably already been made here several times, but the author of this post argues cogently and, I believe, convincingly, that Kate Kelly was not excommunicated for "asking questions," as has been widely promulgated during the past several days.

 

From the post:

 

Kate Kelly was NOT asking a question. Not anymore. She was sharing a teaching, a belief.

From Ordain Women's mission statement: "Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to to reflect the equality and expansiveness of [the fundamental tenets of Mormonism]."

While other language on the website reflects the idea of "asking" Church leaders to prayerfully consider the topic, the fact is that they believe that women should be ordained. Not "We wonder if women should be ordained" or "We are exploring the idea of ordaining women" or "We doubt that God meant for His priesthood to be held exclusively by men." No. Their belief is set. In fact, each member profile on the Ordain Women website ends the same way: "I believe that women should be ordained."

 

Since assumptions can easily become publicly entrenched, when the false narrative crops up that she was disciplined for "asking questions," I hope we who know better will take the trouble to correct it.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Kate Kelly gave an interview to NPR: http://www.npr.org/2014/06/27/326158669/excommunicated-mormon-says-church-cant-cant-take-away-her-faith

Here are some notes about what she said:

1. She analogized her excommunication to an eviction from her "spiritual home," and stripped of her citizenship and "forcibly drawn out" of her community. Excruciatingly painful.

2. Women are given a lot of delegated duties, but they cannot oversee those roles. All leadership roles are filled by the Priesthood. We have a lay clergy on a rotating basis. My bishop is a lawyer for Exxon.

3. (Answering the question "Why did this happen?") This is both a new and old question. There have been a "handful of women" who have been "courageously speaking out" and "agitating" in support of female ordination. Now there are hundreds of Mormons publicly stating they want women ordained. We are now at the tip of the iceberg regarding this conversation. We've had purges before, such as the September Six.

4. (Answering a question about the bishop's decision): The logic in my bishop's decision is "extremely problematic" because it "threatens any Mormon who has a question and wants to ask that question out loud," or write a blog post expressing "concern about a doctrine," or a "sincere desire." It's "extremely problematic" to "punish" people for "having a viewpoint."

5. (Answering a question: "Is it that you had a viewpoint, though? Or that you expressed your concern outside of closed communication channels in the Church? I mean, in part what they're saying is 'This is a family matter, and should've been handled within the family, and you took this outside of the family.'") That's a "disingenuous question" because there is no way to hand it "within the family." We sent letters to the leaders of the church, and they were sent to local leaders who have no control. Our local leaders cannot ordain us.

6. I plan to appeal. But even the appeals process in the Church is weighted very heavily against women. I was excommunicated by a bishop in my ward, but if I were a man that would take place at the stake level with a council of 15 people instead of a ward council with 3 people which is much less formal. So because I'm a woman they were able to "summarily dismiss" me with very little fanfare.

7. (Answering question about her bishop's comments about encouraging her to repent): I have nothing to repent of. The only things I have done is live with integrity, tell the truth, and ask sincere questions regarding gender equality within the Church. I haven't preached any false doctrine. I just made a factual assertion that men and women are not equal in our church.

8. (Answering a question: "What is keeping you going?") They have taken away my membership, but they can't take away my faith in God or my testimony or the feelings I have and the tradition I learned that I am a child of God.

9. (Answering a question about her family): My parents are also being targeted for discipline because of their support for me. They both have profiles on the site and are refusing to take them down. It's a very difficult time for my family. It's almost as though we are being put through community shunning on the neighborhood level, and on a worldwide scale.

10. (Answering a question about day-to-day life in Provo): I am not used to being recognized on the street. Most who approach me are very kind, very open. An older woman stopped me on the street and said "Are you Kate? You are my hero." I have been hoping for this my entire life. That is what keeps me going.

11. (Answering a question about whether she will follow her bishop's counsel to attend church, read scriptures and pray daily): He has no control over that. I will continue to do that on my own accord. Mormonism doesn't wash off and it isn't something they can take away from me.

12. (Answering a question about why doesn't she go somewhere else): I am very invested in the Mormon community. This isn't just about me. If it was just about me, I am an adult and an attorney, and I could go on and live a very happy life. But this is bigger than me and the women who are working with me. My niece is growing up in the Church, and I am thinking of how she will be affected by patriarchy and how it will change the way she sees herself. So I am doing this for her.

A few thoughts:

• I wonder why Kate Kelly is publicly announcing her bishop's employer. Is she trying to get him in trouble with Exxon?

• When she speaks of a "handful of women" who have been "courageously speaking out" and "agitating" in support of female ordination, I think she is speaking of excommunicated apostates like Margaret Toscano and Lavina Fielding Anderson (she has previously publicly declared her admiration of them).

• I think she substantively mischaracterizes the basis of her excommunication. The bishop's letter specifically says that she was *not* being disciplined for having doubts, but she is characterizing it that way anyway.

• Her comment about there not being a means of taking questions to the senior leadership is true. I actually don't have a problem with the Church's policy, as leapfrogging over local and regional leadership to go "to the top" with questions and concerns is simply not a workable solution. That said, I would like to see a general conference talk given about the appropriate way to express concerns and present ideas to the Church. While I don't think this would have made a difference for a person like Kate Kelly (whom I no longer believe has been acting in good faith), such a clarification could help others in the Church with sincere questions and proposals.

• Her comments about the disciplinary process is fairly inaccurate. The decision regarding discipline at the stake level is made by three people: the stake presidency. That is the same number as are involved in the decision at the ward level (the bishopric). The High Council sustains the disciplinary decision, but does not make it. Also, the disciplinary process is not decided on gender, but on jurisdiction over the Priesthood. So men can be tried at the ward level.

• I think she comes close to bearing false witness when she states that the Church can't take away her faith in God or her testimony, thus intimating that the Church has attempted to do those things (instead of the exact opposite, as stated in the bishop's letter).

• Her attitude toward the Church seems evident by her response to the reporter's question about her bishop's encouragement to attend church, read scriptures, and pray. Kate Kelly turned even this utterly benevolent counsel into a power struggle, a grudge match ("He has no control over that...").

• Her response to the "Why don't you just go somewhere else" question is interesting. She makes no reference to have a testimony of the Restored Gospel and its truth claims, or of any spiritual aspect of it. Instead, she talks about Mormonism simply as a social construct, a "community" or club. I think this may indicate why the OW group has paid lip service to the Church being guided by revelation, but why they have then proceeded to disregard revelation and demand female ordination and saying "and nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac