Ny Times Article: Kate Kelly And John Dehlin Threatened With Excommunication

[Scott Lloyd]

BY talks about "persons" knowing for themselves that they are on the right path -- he doesn't say that we need to "obtain" the right path from Church leaders. 

While each must come to know for himself that he is on the right path, few are able in the first place to find that path unaided or to remain on that path without considerable nurturing. That is why the Lord Jesus Christ commissions prophets and apostles to minister to the inhabitants of the earth.

 

In a sense we are collectively symbolized by the Ethiopian who was encountered by Philip and who was reading the book of Isaiah but was unable to understand it unaided (I can relate   ). Philip then expounded the scripture, showing how it pertains to the mission of Jesus Christ and thus aiding the Ethiopian to gain understanding and a testimony that led to his acceptance of the gospel.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Given her previous ability to raise funds to ship in protesters to Salt Lake City, there is ample reason to believe she could, with a few keystrokes, put out a public request for financial assistance, and she would be showered with money.

I'm just not buying the I-can't-afford-the-airfare thing. I have some speculations about why she is choosing to not attend the disciplinary council, but I'll keep them to myself.

Thanks,

-Smac

Part of me goes along with the idea that flying back would be for personal benefit and not for promoting ordination so I can see why she would be reluctant to appeal for financial help on that basis.

 

However, she is using the council as an opportunity to promote the OW agenda, representing it as part of her standing up for ordination, etc. so it seems to be rather integral at this point to the whole process and not a personal thing.

 

So I am iffy on the subject.  I do think if she is making a big deal of it to present herself as a victim of patriarchal oppression, it is very problematic.

[USU78]

I think we can all agree that the LDS Church, like many conservative faiths, does engage in gender discrimination.

 

I think every reasonable person would agree that political sloganeering speech loses all meaning [to the extent it has any] when speaking about the Church, its doctrines, and how it operates.  Accordingly, "we" can do no such thing.

 

USU "Pocketmouse" 78

[The Nehor]

Dear John Dehlin and Kate Kelly:

 

 

That is snark.

[stemelbow]

Their first public announcement was formulated that way, IIRC.  It never got to the point of not stopping, it was always at that point with Ordain Women (the name should be a clue).

 

As to the development to the point of the creation of OW, that would be much more complicated.  There have been women who for decades have claimed that only ordination would suffice, I don't know if they've grown in numbers, I would think so given the internet's contribution to creating a movement.

First? if so, that does sound problematic.

Gray seems to disagree with you as I get the impression he is suggesting they offered communication and was denied, then later got a little more strident in language, no?

Edited June 16, 2014 by stemelbow

[smac97]

Part of me goes along with the idea that flying back would be for personal benefit and not for promoting ordination so I can see why she would be reluctant to appeal for financial help on that basis.

I can respect that. But she could simply put out the announcement and request help as an individual. I am still fairly sure she would receive financial support from online supporters (assuming that all of her relatives and friends are incapable of providing financial assistance).

However, she is using the council as an opportunity to promote the OW agenda, representing it as part of her standing up for ordination, etc. so it seems to be rather integral at this point to the whole process and not a personal thing.

So you're saying that she is making her personal interactions with the Church an integral part of the OW agenda? Yeah, I can see that.

So I am iffy on the subject.  I do think if she is making a big deal of it to present herself as a victim of patriarchal oppression, it is very problematic.

Well, it could itself to the "silencing of women" narrative she has been developing.

I am reminded of Denver Snuffer. He too refused to attend his own disciplinary council, and he did so on a fairly flimsy pretext.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

I can respect that. But she could simply put out the announcement and request help as an individual. I am still fairly sure she would receive financial support from online supporters (assuming that all of her relatives and friends are incapable of providing financial assistance).

So you're saying that she is making her personal interactions with the Church an integral part of the OW agenda? Yeah, I can see that.

Well, it could itself to the "silencing of women" narrative she has been developing.

I am reminded of Denver Snuffer. He too refused to attend his own disciplinary council, and he did so on a fairly flimsy pretext.

Thanks,

-Smac

it would have been best, if possible, if the bishop in VA just sent his desire to hold a church court to the local leaders in Utah wherever she is. Likely, if there was good grounds for the court, it could just been held in Utah and taken care of her complaints and the weirdness of it coming from VA when it was known she was already leaving.

[smac97]

Here is an Op-Ed that does a great job of summarizing much of how I feel about the OW/Kate Kelly issue:

Op-ed: Changing the church: How Ordain Women gets it wrong

 

Read the whole thing:

 

As an LDS graduate of Harvard Divinity School, which trains clergy and religious scholars, I might be expected to align with those who believe the LDS Church should ordain women. I do not. While I respect their opinions and desires, I do not share them. More importantly, I am uncomfortable with their methods for seeking change in the church, which work well for other causes like civil rights campaigns in the public square but are, in my view, inappropriate for advancing personal views in the LDS Church.

First, I do not support the creation of any outside organization to publicly agitate on internal church matters. As a member of the church, I have committed to sustain its leaders. "Sustain" need not mean "always agree with," but to my mind, surely it means not creating a publicity-seeking organization in direct opposition to the church’s position, inviting members to openly oppose both the church’s policies and its reasonable requests. It is possible to air concerns in a productive, straightforward, and private (rather than divisive, symbolic, and purposefully public) manner.

Second, I do not believe in making demands of church leaders. A church is a voluntary private association based on shared convictions (one of which, for Mormonism, is the inspired calling of leaders). Members of the church may appropriately advocate change, but not demand it as one would demand a civil right or insist that leaders accept their personal views. The name of the organization, "Ordain Women," is a grammatical imperative that feels inappropriate to me.

Finally, I have neither the divine calling nor the necessary perspective to resolve complicated doctrinal issues for the church. Intellectual discussion and questioning of doctrine is the privilege of all members. But to claim that my own interpretation is right for the whole church is beyond the scope of my authority. That is, I believe, what prophets are for.

I embrace the Mormon doctrine that God gives knowledge "line upon line, precept upon precept." Sometimes the church changes suddenly; sometimes it changes slowly over generations. Changes could be precipitated by individual members making perspectives known, but it is not inevitably so. In any case, it is not up to any person — not even a prophet — to decide the timing or content of revelation.

Ashley Isaacson Woolley has a master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She is a scholar, editor, wife, mother and Mormon. She lives in Switzerland.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

it would have been best, if possible, if the bishop in VA just sent his desire to hold a church court to the local leaders in Utah wherever she is.

First, that is a judgment call, and one left best to the bishops involved.

Second, Kate Kelly only relocated to Utah for a short time. She is on her way to Africa.

Third, given the duration and complexity of the issues surrounding Kate Kelly, I could easily understand why the VA bishop might reasonably conclude the disciplinary measures are best left to him, as he is already familiar with them. He should still follow the protocols and procedures set forth in the CHI, but the particular circumstances of this situation could be making that difficult.

Likely, if there was good grounds for the court, it could just been held in Utah and taken care of her complaints and the weirdness of it coming from VA when it was known she was already leaving.

Perhaps. But I can also see a reasonable basis for continuing previously announced disciplinary measures in Virginia rather than passing off the matter to another bishop in Utah, who might not even have time to get up to speed before Kate Kelly heads off to Africa.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Has Kelly announced how long she plans to be in Utah?  Has she informed her VA bishop?

[stemelbow]

First, that is a judgment call, and one left best to the bishops involved.

Second, Kate Kelly only relocated to Utah for a short time. She is on her way to Africa.

Third, given the duration and complexity of the issues surrounding Kate Kelly, I could easily understand why the VA bishop might reasonably conclude the disciplinary measures are best left to him, as he is already familiar with them. He should still follow the protocols and procedures set forth in the CHI, but the particular circumstances of this situation could be making that difficult.

Perhaps. But I can also see a reasonable basis for continuing previously announced disciplinary measures in Virginia rather than passing off the matter to another bishop in Utah, who might not even have time to get up to speed before Kate Kelly heads off to Africa.

Thanks,

-Smac

No doubt you're correct about what was weighed in the poor bishop's mind [and prayers]. I'm sure it's been heavily considered and is being approached in what he is considered the best resolution.

[stemelbow]

Has Kelly announced how long she plans to be in Utah?  Has she informed her VA bishop?

if not, then he could possibly have been convening a court for her while she was on the other side of the world, which could possibly come off a little worse.

Whether it's too her advantage that the court is taking place in VA, while she is in Utah, I don't know. It just sounds a little weird--as if she was gone, or her exit was eminent. Why make such a fuss if she's not there? its for others to handle. At least that's how it can come off. I'll leave the Bishop's decision to him at this point. Just a thought.

[smac97]

Has Kelly announced how long she plans to be in Utah?  Has she informed her VA bishop?

I seem to recall her saying she would be in Utah for two months. I may be wrong about that, tho.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

So, in which state will we burn her as a witch?

[bluebell]

I seem to recall her saying she would be in Utah for two months. I may be wrong about that, tho.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

In late 2012 my husband and i were in the process of moving from Montana to North Dakota for a job.  Housing in North Dakota being what it was, it took us about two months before we could actually make the move (though he was already working up there).  During that time the kids and i moved to Wyoming to live with my parents (he would come home every weekend), where i actually worked as an intern at the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody-we decided if we had to be there anyway, i might as well get something out of it so we just decided we would plan on being there for about two months.  While there we attended my parents ward.  We were not members of the ward though.  The bishop there (as well as ourselves) did not see a reason to read our records in knowing we were on our way out, and our old bishop did not see the need to send our records forward until we were in our new more permanent ward.

 

So it's certainly not unusual for Kelly's bishop to keep her records, if she is only going to be living in Utah for a couple of months.

Edited June 16, 2014 by bluebell

[USU78]

So, in which state will we burn her as a witch?

 

Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch? Peasant: She looks like one. [Crowd indistinctly shouts] Bedevere: Bring her forward! Girl: I'm not a witch. Bedevere: But you are dressed as one... Girl: They dressed me up like this. [Crowd murmurs] Girl: And this isn't my nose. This is a false one. Bedevere: [inspects the nose and confirms] Well? Peasant: Well, we did do the nose. Bedevere: The nose? Peasant: And the hat. She's a witch! Peasant Crowd: Burn her! Bedevere: Did you dress her up like this? Peasant Crowd: No, no, no! [beat] Yes, yes. A bit. But she's got a wart. Bedevere: What makes you think she is a witch? Peasant: Oh, she turned me into a newt! [bedevere gives him a disbelieving look] Bedevere: A newt? [silence] Peasant: Well, I got better. Peasant Crowd: Burn her anyway!

     

[bluebell]

First? if so, that does sound problematic.

Gray seems to disagree with you as I get the impression he is suggesting they offered communication and was denied, then later got a little more strident in language, no?

 

It was OW's position from the beginning.  This is a quote from Kate Kelly from Oct. 2013-the first time OW tried to gain access to the general priesthood meeting during general conference.  It's basically the very first time we all 'meet' Kate Kelly, OW, and are introduced to their objective.

 

" The ordination of women would put us all on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice.”

[stemelbow]

In late 2012 my husband and i were in the process of moving from Montana to North Dakota for a job.  Housing in North Dakota being what it was, it took us about two months before we could actually make the move (though he was already working up there).  During that time the kids and i moved to Wyoming to live with my parents (he would come home every weekend), where i actually worked as an intern at the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody-we decided if we had to be there anyway, i might as well get something out of it so we just decided we would plan on being there for about two months.  While there we attended my parents ward.  We were not members of the ward though.  The bishop there (as well as ourselves) did not see a reason to read our records in knowing we were on our way out, and our old bishop did not see the need to send our records forward until we were in our new more permanent ward.

 

So it's certainly not unusual for Kelly's bishop to keep her records, if she is only going to be living in Utah for a couple of months.

Still plenty of time for a local leader near her to have a number of discussions and get a clear picture of the whole situation.

[bluebell]

Still plenty of time for a local leader near her to have a number of discussions and get a clear picture of the whole situation.

 

That's not really what i was commenting on though.

 

Kelly has claimed that it is unChristian and cowardly for her bishop in VA not to have sent her records on but to have kept them and now be holding the court there.   Besides the fact that doing such is well within the guidelines for such issues (as others have linked in this thread pages and pages ago), it's also not at all unusual for bishops not to sent records forward when someone is in transit.  

 

Kelly is trying to make it sound like he is doing this just to be a jerk.  I was simply providing a personal experience to show that it's not out of the ordinary.

[mnn727]

You and the others please CFR what was false in her letter? Men just seem to think a woman is the b-word when a woman acts like a man sometimes. You guys just want to put her in her place, IMO. Can't handle when a female acts like this I guess. Name one lie about the instructions given her. I read the link differently I guess.

You are waaaaay out of line here. Did you even actually read the words that were written?

[eddie]

In late 2012 my husband and i were in the process of moving from Montana to North Dakota for a job.  Housing in North Dakota being what it was, it took us about two months before we could actually make the move (though he was already working up there).  During that time the kids and i moved to Wyoming to live with my parents (he would come home every weekend), where i actually worked as an intern at the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody-we decided if we had to be there anyway, i might as well get something out of it so we just decided we would plan on being there for about two months.  While there we attended my parents ward.  We were not members of the ward though.  The bishop there (as well as ourselves) did not see a reason to read our records in knowing we were on our way out, and our old bishop did not see the need to send our records forward until we were in our new more permanent ward.

 

So it's certainly not unusual for Kelly's bishop to keep her records, if she is only going to be living in Utah for a couple of months.

 

I had the same circumstance once.   I moved to Washington D.C. one summer to do a Congressional internship.   I left my wife and child with her mother in Utah.  Since I was only in Washington for 4 months, they never requested my records.

[stemelbow]

It was OW's position from the beginning.  This is a quote from Kate Kelly from Oct. 2013-the first time OW tried to gain access to the general priesthood meeting during general conference.  It's basically the very first time we all 'meet' Kate Kelly, OW, and are introduced to their objective.

 

" The ordination of women would put us all on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice.”

Nothing less than being on equal footing with the brethren, or nothing less than ordination of women? I don't know that her statement requires ordination of women is the only way to get on equal footing with the brethren.

Thanks for the follow-up on this.

Edited June 16, 2014 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

That's not really what i was commenting on though.

 

Kelly has claimed that it is unChristian and cowardly for her bishop in VA not to have sent her records on but to have kept them and now be holding the court there.   Besides the fact that doing such is well within the guidelines for such issues (as others have linked in this thread pages and pages ago), it's also not at all unusual for bishops not to sent records forward when someone is in transit.  

 

Kelly is trying to make it sound like he is doing this just to be a jerk.  I was simply providing a personal experience to show that it's not out of the ordinary.

That's fine. But it seems to be just another way for her to use it to her advantage. If the "court of love" was conducted where she is, she wouldn't have that card to play at all.

What sounds normal to us may sound different to others in the audience of this whole thing. If she's playing this for PR, for self-promotion, or whatever, then every little added indiscretion helps her cause. If there is genuine wrong doing on her part to justify such a court, then it'd matter not whether it was conducted in VA or Utah. The timing of it doesn't help.

[sethpayne]

Nothing less than being on equal footing with the brethren, or nothing less than ordination of women? I don't know that her statement requires ordination of women is the only way to get on equal footing with the brethren.

Thanks for the follow-up on this.

 

Not THE Brethren.  

[stemelbow]

Not THE Brethren.

I know. her brethren, the normal average brethren of the Church.