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

[Scott Lloyd]

Everything I have read indicates that both men wanted the church to change its policy on ordaining blacks. Wallace even ordained one without permission. CFR that "according to Marchant and Wallace, they did not want good things to be happening to the fraud that was the Church."

I think forum rules prohibit me from linking to anti-Mormon content, but these are Marchant's words from the "dedication" of an online book he wrote called "Mormon Roots":

 

When my then teen daughters asked if they could be baptized into the Mormon church I asked if they knew it was a hoax...

 

.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Everything I have read indicates that both men wanted the church to change its policy on ordaining blacks.

From Google searches, I notice there are a lot of hits from anti-Mormon sources when one searches Marchant and Wallace. Is that the nature of what you have read?

[Thinking]

Read the MormonHeretic blog I have referenced a few times.

 

http://mormonheretic.org/2011/07/10/events-leading-up-to-the-1978-revelation/

 

"I do think that demonstrations/lawsuits had some effect, but I hardly think that your lawsuit caused the revelation."

 

Some effect? Thank you for helping to make my point about confounding variables.

 

It could be that there is more than one thing that is a factor. It's very common to have confounding variables. In other words, A, B, C, D and E might all together cause F to happen.

[Thinking]

From Google searches, I notice there are a lot of hits from anti-Mormon sources when one searches Marchant and Wallace. Is that the nature of what you have read?

 

It was difficult to find non-anti sources, but I did find some.

[Pahoran]

Or

 

Let's say my son is struggling in school. My wife hires a tutor to help him get better grades. I talk to his coach to see if he can encourage him.

His grades improve. What is the more likely cause? Perhaps they both are a factor in the better grades. It might be difficult to figure out which had a greater effect.

 

It could be that there is more than one thing that is a factor. It's very common to have confounding variables. In other words, A, B, C, D and E might all together cause F to happen.

Or,

Let's say your son is struggling in school. You and your wife hire a tutor to help him. Three days before a final exam, a group of bullies waylay him on the way home and throw stones at him. He's not seriously hurt; he takes the exam and passes with a good mark.

One of the bullies, being entirely ignorant of what's really going on, takes credit for scaring him into better performance at school.

Just like some equally uninformed people might try to give fringe crackpots credit for events entirely beyond their control.

Got it now?

That's all right. I won't be surprised if you don't.

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Avatar4321]

I find it amazing that some people can think these lawsuits were the cause rather than the impending Temple in Brazil.

[cdowis]

It suits their agenda that the doctrines of the church are influenced by the vox populi.  As has been posted here, we shout at the brethren and perhaps they will respond.

Edited June 16, 2014 by cdowis

[smac97]

Kate Kelly appears to be doubling down: Article: "I may be excommunicated from my church for asking for equal rights"

 

Women aren't allowed to be ordained as priests in the Mormon faith. Because I created a movement to advocate for ordination and equality, I've been ordered not to pray aloud

She's not to pray aloud in church meetings. It seems sorta dissembling to suggest that she cannot pray aloud at all, anywhere.

 

On Sunday, I will be tried in absentia for apostasy by the leaders of my former congregation in the Mormon church. I face potential excommunication for the simple act of opening my mouth and starting a conversation about gender equality in the church and the deep roots of this institutional inequality.

Well, we all know she's done a lot more than merely "open her mouth." More dissembling.

 

My grave situation is another example of how silencing women has long been a top communications priority for patriarchical institutions, both literally and figuratively.

Wow. Publicly accusing the Church of "silencing women." No mention here of John Dehlin, a noted non-woman, who is also facing discipline and is presumably likewise prohibited from praying in Church.

There is no gender-based silencing in the Church. She is being disciplined because of what she has said and done, not because she is a woman.

 

In the Mormon church, all positions of authority and leadership require ordination to the priesthood – and no women can be ordained, though the vast majority of male members, age 12 and up, are. This means that no women can lead any official rites and ceremonies, despite the fact that there is no specific Mormon church doctrine explaining why women are not ordained.

"All positions of authority and leadership?" Including Relief Society?

 

In early 2013 I felt inspired to create a movement seeking equality for and ordination to the priesthood for Mormon women. The backlash was fairly immediate from many more orthodox members of the church, but my congregation's leaders in northern Virginia said nothing to me for over a year.

Last month I moved away from Virginia and, after I left, I was placed on "informal probation" by my former local congregational leaders and can no longer participate in church activities in any congregation or church, regardless of where I go.

And even more dissembling. She can go to Church. She can attend pretty much all Church functions. She can't attend the temple, and cannot teach in church or offer a prayer in a church setting or speak in group settings in Church.

 

One of the stipulations listed in the letter from my leaders is to literally keep my mouth shut. It says, "If you are invited to pray or read a passage or comment in a class or other Church meeting, you must decline." Under this directive, I am not even allowed to speak when spoken to in church. I am, however, encouraged to continue to tithe.

And more dissembling. She can speak to anyone, but she cannot speak in a group setting (such as a Sunday School class).

And what, I wonder, is up with noting to a secular paper that she is "encouraged to continue to tithe?" If the Church forbade her to tithe, wouldn't she be griping about that as well?

 

Being silenced this way feels as though a physical gag has been placed in my mouth each Sunday, and the pain of knowing my feelings and ideas are unwelcome is sharp. I am deeply saddened that my beloved church is considering forcibly ejecting me for living out what I was taught in a primary song as a child: "do what is right, let the consequence follow".

"My beloved church?" The one she defied and trespassed against? The one on whose sacred ground she staged a protest? The one whose sacred convocations she has repeatedly attempted to distract from and disrupt? The one with the bishop whom she publicly accused of being "cowardly and unchristlike?" The one she publicly accuses in this article (see below) of "injustice and discrimination," even "insidious" discrimination?

I'd like to think she she loves the Church, but public accusations like this color that assessment. Imagine if she went public with criticisms and denouncements leveled against a family member. Would that person feel "beloved?" Would such actions be compatible with a "beloved" relationship?

 

Religious women with concerns about gender inequality, like myself, are faithful people, yet we have earnest questions. Our voices speak words of concern with love. Far from being censured, the valid questions we are asking should be taken seriously at the highest levels of our institutions, no matter what creed or faith. After all, women make up at least one half of all church membership worldwide.

As Juliann and Cal have repeatedly noted, there are plenty of women who are asking these questions, and there is some substantial evidence that they are being heard.

 

For me it is because of my faith – and not in spite of it – that I have a desire to stand up for myself and my sisters. I have been taught a vision of a truly cooperative future where men and women are complete equals.

In fact, Mormon doctrine teaches that we have Heavenly Parents: Mother and Father. As Mormon poetess and pioneer Eliza R Snow wrote in a cherished Mormon hymn:

In the heav'ns are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare!

Truth is reason; truth eternal

Tells me I've a mother there.

Knowing that our Heavenly Parents are both male and female teaches me that our potential as women is limitless. However, I do not see that eternal equality reflected in the contemporary church.

Um, is that an accusation that the Church is in a state of apostasy? It kinda sounds like it.

 

In my professional work as a human rights attorney, I have had the great honor of working with courageous women from all around the world. From Western Sahara to Cuba to Zimbabwe, I have been inspired by courageous women of all faiths, who face great consequences – many far greater than I do – for pursuing equality in and outside of their faith traditions. They have taught me that there is no reason that our churches, mosques and synagogues should be the last bastion of sexism in the world.

Because of them, I can more clearly see the face of God, and she is beautiful.

And now public advocacy of Mother in Heaven. Oi.

Or is she suggesting that Heavenly Father lacks a gender? I'm confused at what she is saying here.

And note her accusation against the Church of "sexism" ("discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex").

 

Significant, worldwide progress to achieve gender equality necessitates progression from inside every religious tradition, because injustice and discrimination inside our faiths hurts all of us, not just the women in those faiths.

But while religion can be – and has been – used to perpetuate insidious discrimination, it has also been a motivation for many courageous people to seek social justice throughout history. Religion can – and should – be a catalyst for good. It can encourage men and women to re-think outdated gender roles and help us all become more accepting and inclusive.

She is now publicly accusing the Church of "injustice and discrimination," even "insidious" discrimination.

 

Changes and reforms within faith traditions ought to come from inside our organizations. Women like me are asking heartfelt questions and seeking to improve the churches that we love. Instead of being punished for speaking out, we need to be listened to and taken seriously.

Every institution can benefit from greater participation from one half of its body. To remain relevant in today's world, religious institutions will thrive by tackling tough questions of gender equality, engaging with concerned women and helping move us all forward, together.

We will be reverent and we will be respectful – but we will not be silenced.

She is publishing an article to the world, and yet is somehow in danger of being "silenced?"

This is yet another sad development in the story of Kate Kelly. The rebellion and defiance against the Church is acutely expressed in this article. I hope she has a change of heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2014 by smac97

[Storm Rider]

That letter of hers completely disgusts me.  She plays fast and loose with the facts.  Knowing that she is trained as a lawyer only reinforces my thinking that this poor, lying soul, could not tell the truth or have any value for the truth than the lowest demon in hell.  (Yes, I am one of those who does not regard the profession with much pride; there are good attorneys, but they are the exception rather than the rule)  I realize that is quite strong, but her every action is repugnant to me.  

 

This is inflammatory rhetoric, cool it down.

[ERayR]

  (Yes, I am one of those who does not regard the profession with much pride; there are good attorneys, but they are the exception rather than the rule)  I realize that is quite strong, but her every action is repugnant to me.  

 

You and Brigham Young so I guess that means it is doctrine?

[smac97]

That letter of hers completely disgusts me.  She plays fast and loose with the facts.  Knowing that she is trained as a lawyer only reinforces my thinking that this poor, lying soul, could not tell the truth or have any value for the truth than the lowest demon in hell.  (Yes, I am one of those who does not regard the profession with much pride; there are good attorneys, but they are the exception rather than the rule)  I realize that is quite strong, but her every action is repugnant to me.

Please restrain yourself from such characterizations. There is no value in making comparisons between her and "the lowest demon in hell." I think she is presently very misguided and wrong in her actions, but clearly her article was written in anger. We can criticize the article without upping the ante by comparing her to devils. She is still our sister in the Gospel and still a daughter of our Heavenly Father.

Also, I believe bad lawyers are the exception, not the rule. I have met and worked with a few hundred by now (I have been a practicing lawyer for 10 years). The bad ones stick out in one's memory, not because they are large in number, but because they are the exception to the normal behaviors expected from - and usually exhibited by - attorneys.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2014 by smac97

[Gray]

She is now publicly accusing the Church of "injustice and discrimination," even "insidious" discrimination.

 

 

 

Given the types of criticisms you've laid at her feet, this feels particularly unfair and inaccurate. 

[Mystery Meat]

I keep telling myself to take Kate Kelly at her word, that she really is a sincere, believing Mormon. But that article and some of her actions seem to fly in the face of that assertion. I don't think she really understands the Church and what she believes in is not the Church as it is.

[ERayR]

Given the types of criticisms you've laid at her feet, this feels particularly unfair and inaccurate. 

 

Except one is true and one is not.

[smac97]

Given the types of criticisms you've laid at her feet, this feels particularly unfair and inaccurate.

I do not understand your point. Are my criticisms unfounded? Are you suggesting that she isn't accusing the Church of "'injustice and discrimination,' even 'insidious' discrimination?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

Yes, the leaders of the Church are indeed fallible. That doesn't change the fact that if God REALLY wanted the leaders to correct a hard doctrine he could find a way to make it happen without any social protests and publicity whoring. If you think that is how revelation works...you don't really understand the Lord's way. 

 

If God really wanted me to get an A, he'd just give me the answers to the test.

 

If God really wanted to save me from this flood, he'd just send an angel, not a rescue team in a helicopter. That's the Lord's way.

[Gray]

I believe the overriding condition that both Kelly and Dehlin appear to have is the one that many have including myself and that is the sin of pride.  It manifests itself differently but it all comes back to that.  Neither are going to change until they deal with that issue.  This is especially true with Kate Kelly.  She thinks she is entitled to the Priesthood. God owes it to her.  She really forgets the larger perspective that every single blessing that God has offerred to a faithful priestoood man is offerred to a sister who is faithful.  Exaltation is exaltation.  There is no super exaltation state awaiting a sister if they get the priesthood.  Kate Kelly if she is faithful to what the Lord asks of her to do will be granted the same exact exaltation that Thomas S Monson will be granted if he is faithful to his callings.   If anyone really has a right to complain it is Thomas Monson because he is asked far more of by the Lord to do things than we are including Kate Kelly.  But he does not complain because he understands the gospel that its not about comparing ourselves to other people and seeing if the Lord is treating other people better than ourselves and seeing if God is being unfair. (I personally do this a lot in my life and I need to repent of this attitude.)  We just have to do our respective assignment and we gain eternal life.  Kate Kelly assignment is to do her job that the Lord asks of her.  If it means she does not get the priesthood, big deal.  She gets eternal life.  What more can anyone ask.

 

 

It's tempting to think that people who see issues differently are victims of their own pride. Are you being prideful when you refuse to bend on one of your own cherished beliefs? Is it prideful to support what you think is true?

[smac97]

It's tempting to think that people who see issues differently are victims of their own pride. Are you being prideful when you refuse to bend on one of your own cherished beliefs? Is it prideful to support what you think is true?

I don't think people who have been critical of Kate Kelly are critical simply because they "see issues differently." I think there is all sorts of latitude available in the Church for reasonable disagreement about particular doctrinal issues. Instead, the criticisms against Kate Kelly have been principally not about her ideas so much as her methods of propagating those ideas. Also, the letter I posted also seems to go well beyond mere difference of opinion about doctrinal issues. People in the Church can disagree about female ordination without A) publicly demanding female ordination and declaring that "nothing less will suffice," B) protesting on sacred ground during a sacred convocation, C) aligning against the Church with an excommunicated apostate, D) publicly accusing a judge in Israel of being "cowardly and unchristlike," E) publicly accuse the Church of "sexism" and "injustice" and "insidious discrimination" against women, and so on.

That said, I'm not particularly interested in debating whether Kate Kelly is being "prideful." That's too subjective and too that's-between-her-and-her-bishop-and-God to merit discussion on a public board.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

I keep telling myself to take Kate Kelly at her word, that she really is a sincere, believing Mormon. But that article and some of her actions seem to fly in the face of that assertion. I don't think she really understands the Church and what she believes in is not the Church as it is.

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.

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

Wow, Tacenda. Really? You are accusing me of sexism, while at the same time saying I just assume she is a b-word? I want to put her in her place? Can't handle when a female acts like this?

 

Way out of line and VERY sexist.

[Gray]

I don't think people who have been critical of Kate Kelly are critical simply because they "see issues differently." I think there is all sorts of latitude available in the Church for reasonable disagreement about particular doctrinal issues. Instead, the criticisms against Kate Kelly have been principally not about her ideas so much as her methods of propagating those ideas. Also, the letter I posted also seems to go well beyond mere difference of opinion about doctrinal issues. People in the Church can disagree about female ordination without A) publicly demanding female ordination and declaring that "nothing less will suffice," B) protesting on sacred ground during a sacred convocation, C) aligning against the Church with an excommunicated apostate, D) publicly accusing a judge in Israel of being "cowardly and unchristlike," E) publicly accuse the Church of "sexism" and "injustice" and "insidious discrimination" against women, and so on.

That said, I'm not particularly interested in debating whether Kate Kelly is being "prideful." That's too subjective and too that's-between-her-and-her-bishop-and-God to merit discussion on a public board.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I agree Kelly could have been less strident. But then again, the Church PR department had some borderline snarky responses to OW. Heaven knows we've all been guilty of being too strident in our lives. It's hard to rein that in about issues we're passionate about. 

[Gray]

I do not understand your point. Are my criticisms unfounded? Are you suggesting that she isn't accusing the Church of "'injustice and discrimination,' even 'insidious' discrimination?"

Thanks,

-Smac

 

She said "religion", not the church. 

[smac97]

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.

Here are a few:

1. The Church does not "silence" women, either generally or vis a vis Kate Kelly in particular.

2. Kate Kelly is not being disciplined because of her gender.

3. Kate Kelly is not being prohibited from praying aloud. She is being prohibited from praying in group settings in Church meetings.

4. Kate Kelly is not being disciplined "for the simple act of opening (her) mouth."

5. Kate Kelly falsely stated that "all positions of authority and leadership require ordination to the priesthood."

6. Kate Kelly is not prohibited from speaking to others at Church.

7. Kate Kelly accuses the Brethren of not seriously considering "valid questions."

8. Kate Kelly impliedly accuses "the contemporary Church" of being in a state of apostasy.

9. Kate Kelly falsely accuses the Church of "sexism," "injustice and discrimination," even "insidious" discrimination against women.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree Kelly could have been less strident. But then again, the Church PR department had some borderline snarky responses to OW. Heaven knows we've all been guilty of being too strident in our lives. It's hard to rein that in about issues we're passionate about. 

What "borderline snarky comments"?

 

And by the way, what you call "the Church PR department" acts at the behest of the Church leadership. As Michael Otterson said, Church Public Affairs does not "free-lance."

[smac97]

She said "religion", not the church.

Look again, dude:

 

Significant, worldwide progress to achieve gender equality necessitates progression from inside every religious tradition, because injustice and discrimination inside our faiths hurts all of us, not just the women in those faiths.

But while religion can be – and has been – used to perpetuate insidious discrimination, it has also been a motivation for many courageous people to seek social justice throughout history. Religion can – and should – be a catalyst for good. It can encourage men and women to re-think outdated gender roles and help us all become more accepting and inclusive.

Are you seriously suggesting that Kate Kelly, in making these observations, was referring to all religions except the LDS Church?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac