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

[bluebell]

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.

 

I agree.

 

But i'm much more comfortable with a church, and clergy, who try to do the right thing even if it's going to be easier for outsiders to judge harshly, than those who try to do the PR thing.

 

In such cases, doing the 'dumb' thing actually makes the church look better-at least more sincere and honest-than doing the 'smart' thing.

[smac97]

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.

It appears that, for Kate Kelly, female ordination is synonymous with "being on equal footing with the brethren." See also this comment from Kate Kelly made on May 10, 2013: "Speaking of maintaining the status quo & thoughts… I simply don’t *think* that the *status quo* will change unless we ask, clearly and directly, for what we want. No need to couch it is terms other than what we mean. We want full equality, and nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

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

 

 

New Hampshire, give the locals something to talk about

[Thinking]

Dear John Dehlin and Kate Kelly:

 

 

That is snark.

 

If you're gonna be snarky, at least use the original.

 

[Tacenda]

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

CFR that she said she can't afford it please.

[smac97]

CFR that she said she can't afford it please.

 

She told the Tribune that during a Youtube interview (see here).  See my note #10 ("Question to Kate Kelly: Why aren't you flying back to Virginia? Answer: I am in Provo. I have already moved. I have a medical emergency involving a family member and am caring for her. I don't have money to travel."). My notes are not verbatim, but I believe they are accurate on this point (I am open to correction should anyone want to listen to the broadcast again).

She's pretty much choosing to not participate. In the Trib interview last week she claimed that she cannot attend because 1) she has moved to Utah (but we still have functioning airlines, so that doesn't wash), 2) she is caring for a sick relative (that's a good reason to not attend, but she could simply tell her bishop that and ask that he re-schedule the council), and 3) she doesn't have money (but she's previously used the OW group to raise money to pay for protesters to fly into Salt Lake to protest during General Conference, so I suspect she could rather easily raise money through similar means to fly out to Virginia).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2014 by smac97

[Gray]

She specified what demands were considered divisive which were the "non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes".  It wasn't the "prayerfully consider" part, it was the "no less will suffice" part.

 

I don't think OW demanded anything

[Calm]

"At this meeting, Ordain Women will make a public statement continuing our unequivocal call for complete equality and the ordination of Mormon women."

http://ordainwomen.org/ow_news/page/2/

[Gray]

I guess we'll have to disagree, then. I see no snark.

I also disagree about the OW group trying "initiate" a "conversation." Publicly demanding the priesthood, and saying that "nothing less will suffice," is not a request for a "conversation." Defying the Church and protesting on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, is not a request for a "conversation." Kate Kelly characterizing her bishop to The New York Times as "cowardly and unchristlike" is not a request for a "conversation." Publicly accusing the Church of "sexism" and "injustice" and "insidious discrimination" against women is not a request for a "conversation."

Moreover, just because the Church has declined to talk to the OW group about their non-negotiable, nothing-less-will-suffice demand for the priesthood does not meet that the Church is not communicating with more reasonable individuals and groups.

The OW group has publicly demanded female ordination and stated that "nothing less will suffice." It is this demand to which the PA Department's was responsive. It is a distortion and caricature to suggest that the OW group is merely "asking the brethren to prayerfully consider women's ordination."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Well, it's certainly a subjective value judgement. I don't think OW has made demands of that sort. They are firm in their moral views on equality. They have asked, not demanded, for consideration of the issue.

 

I'm not aware that the church is meeting with any pro-ordination groups

[Gray]

It is interesting though that she has not simply asked for the date to be changed, as her bishop said was an option.  She has always been able to fly to Utah from DC whenever she needed to for OW, so it's hard to fault her bishop for not thinking she could manage to fly back, especially if she were allowed to pick the day.

 

I certainly don't know all the circumstances and am not suggesting she is lying.  But like it said, it's very interesting that she, with all her skills and determination when it comes to OW issues, can't make it work out to her own benefit (which is what she is claiming-that it is detrimental to her not to be able to be there in person).

 

Short notice, plus taking care of a sick relative, plus preparing to move overseas. You can't see how it would be hard to fly across country on short notice?

[Gray]

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

 

If you take a moment to consider her circumstances, you might understand how an extra (expensive) flight might not be feasible right now. 

[Gray]

What do we know about in regards to the initiating the conversation and the Church's response?

I'm curious because I don't know how it got to the point of not stopping until women are ordained, type of stuff.

 

I understand that they'd written Church HQ before and hadn't gotten any response, but I might be wrong

[Gray]

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

 

Discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't suddenly become a meaningless word in the context of religious practice. You may think God has instituted it, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. 

[Gray]

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?

 

I'm not sure about that. I think both sides have escalated things with their language, where more conciliatory language might have made relations better between Church HQ and OW.

[bluebell]

CFR that she said she can't afford it please.

 

I believe it's in post #428.

 

Question #10.

[Gray]

It appears that, for Kate Kelly, female ordination is synonymous with "being on equal footing with the brethren." See also this comment from Kate Kelly made on May 10, 2013: "Speaking of maintaining the status quo & thoughts… I simply don’t *think* that the *status quo* will change unless we ask, clearly and directly, for what we want. No need to couch it is terms other than what we mean. We want full equality, and nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Well, it's certainly a subjective value judgement. I don't think OW has made demands of that sort. They are firm in their moral views on equality. They have asked, not demanded, for consideration of the issue.

I don't see how "and nothing less will suffice" can be construed as a request rather than a demand. Again, we'll need to agree to disagree.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

 

She told the Tribune that during a Youtube interview (see here).  See my note #10 ("Question to Kate Kelly: Why aren't you flying back to Virginia? Answer: I am in Provo. I have already moved. I have a medical emergency involving a family member and am caring for her. I don't have money to travel."). My notes are not verbatim, but I believe they are accurate on this point (I am open to correction should anyone want to listen to the broadcast again).

She's pretty much choosing to not participate. In the Trib interview last week she claimed that she cannot attend because 1) she has moved to Utah (but we still have functioning airlines, so that doesn't wash), 2) she is caring for a sick relative (that's a good reason to not attend, but she could simply tell her bishop that and ask that he re-schedule the council), and 3) she doesn't have money (but she's previously used the OW group to raise money to pay for protesters to fly into Salt Lake to protest during General Conference, so I suspect she could rather easily raise money through similar means to fly out to Virginia).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Arguably a misuse of OW funds and not at all certain on such short notice that such funds could be raised 

[smac97]

Short notice, plus taking care of a sick relative, plus preparing to move overseas. You can't see how it would be hard to fly across country on short notice?

IIRC, her bishop has offered to re-schedule it to fit her schedule, and she is not taking him up on that offer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

Discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't suddenly become a meaningless word in the context of religious practice. You may think God has instituted it, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. 

 

So  . . .  you agree then that there is no "we" involved, as you had claimed?

[bluebell]

Short notice, plus taking care of a sick relative, plus preparing to move overseas. You can't see how it would be hard to fly across country on short notice?

 

I can definitely see that.

 

But given that the bishop said they would change the date if she needed that, it's harder to see it as being a road block she couldn't work around if she really wanted to.

 

And of course the mileage she is getting off of playing the 'tried in abstentia' card she keeps playing over and over again also makes it harder to take her at her word.

 

But i'm not calling her a liar-just saying that it's interesting.

[stemelbow]

I understand that they'd written Church HQ before and hadn't gotten any response, but I might be wrong

They may have. The letter may have been less helpful than we might like to think though. The more I see about this, the more I'm disappointed in the tactics used, because as a matter of principle I rather like the idea that women should be ordained.

[mormonnewb]

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.

The lowest demon in hell? Repugnant? Perhaps, Miss Kelly isn't the only one who is in need of repentance.

I disagree with the actions of her bishop but I have NO animosity towards the brother. I think he is dead wrong, but I'd buy him a [root] beer if I met him. I am SURE that he is doing what he THINKS is right, even though I think he might unwittingly do harm to the Church.

Why is it not possible to see Miss Kelly as someone who is misguided, but not Satan's hand maiden?

[smac97]

Discrimination is discrimination.

No, it's not. An employer who hires the most qualified candidate for a job does so by "discriminating" against the less qualified candidates. And yet nobody gets up in arms over such a process, because that type of "discrimination" is both legally and morally acceptable. In contrast, invidious discrimination (based on racial animus, for example) is neither legally nor morally acceptable.

So we can't just say that "discrimination is discrimination," because there is an unspoken assumption/connotation in most discussions of the topic that "discrimination" that is being criticized is the bad kind.

For a scriptural discussion of the type of "discrimination" which I think is under discussion here, please see 1 Cor. 12.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2014 by smac97

[stemelbow]

I'm not sure about that. I think both sides have escalated things with their language, where more conciliatory language might have made relations better between Church HQ and OW.

Probably so. Much like how little personal battles escalate around here I suppose.